Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Pressmaster, Inc., Westmont, IL, USA ("Complainant") represented by Michelle Burke, McDermott, Will & Emery. The Respondent is Quixotic Internet Consultants, Laveen, AZ, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "pressmaster.com", registered with Network Solutions.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on November 30, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 20, 2000.

On December 4, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "pressmaster.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On December 4, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 26, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@pressmaster.com by e-mail.

On December 29, 2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

1. The domain name "pressmaster.com" is identical to and confusingly similar to Complainantís trademark. Complainant has used its mark in commerce for many years and it registered its mark on August 13, 1974, with the United State Patent and Trademark Office. The mark is famous and distinctive.

2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name because it has not satisfied any of the factors listed in Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

3. Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it is holding the domain name for sale, along with many other domain names.

B. Respondent

1. Respondent has agreed to relinquish the domain name in issue, but it denies Complainantís charges.

1. Complainant is the owner of the trademark "PRESSMASTER," which was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 13, 1974.

2. Complainant uses its mark in connection with its tool design services and the sale of crimping, stripping and cutting tools. The mark is famous and distinctive, and is entitled to the higher protection afforded it by law.

3. Respondent registered the domain name "pressmaster.com" on April 13, 1997, prior to any attempted domain registration by Complainant.

4. Respondent is holding the domain name, and many others for sale. It offered to sell to Complainant the domain name for $12,375.00, with an alleged discount of 25% off the "appraised cash price of $16,500.00."

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Complainantís mark and the domain name in issue are identical and confusingly similar.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy informs a Respondent that, without limitation, it may demonstrate that it has rights to and a legitimate interest in a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii), as follows:

The Panelist cannot find that Respondent could demonstrate any of the factors listed, nor can it establish any other basis for finding that it has rights and a legitimate interest in the domain name.

The domain name in issue is "for sale" by Respondent, along with many other names. Specifically, it made an offer to sell the domain name to Complainant. Respondent has over 40 domain names open to bid.

This is classic "cybersquatting" demonstrating bad faith registration and use condemned by court decision; [Panavision Intíl, L.P. v. Toeppen (9^th Cir. 1998) holding names for sale is "bad faith" use [1998] USCA9 991; 141 F.3d 1316, 1325]; by the recently enacted Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act [15 U.S.C. 1125(d)(1)(A) and (1)(B)(i)(vi]; and by the "Policy" [Paragraph 4b(i)]

Based on the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided that the domain name "pressmaster.com" registered by Respondent Quixotic Internet Consultants shall be transferred to Complainant Pressmaster, Inc.