Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Unitas Management Corp, Baldwin, MD, USA ("Complainant") represented by Lawrence V. Molnar, of CMG Worldwide Inc. The Respondent is Noreserve Inc., Annapolis, MD, USA ("Respondent") represented by William M. Chaires.

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

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

John A. Bender as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on February 15, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 16, 2001.

On February 21, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "johnunitas.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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On February 22, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 14, 2001 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 Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@johnunitas.com by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on March 12, 2001.

Complainant submitted a timely additional submission, which was received and determined to be complete on March 15, 2001.

On March 19, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member Panel, the Forum appointed John A. Bender, Jr. as Panelist.

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

A. Complainant

Complainant’s contentions are that the domain name is protected by common law and statutory trademark protection. That the domain name is confusingly similar. That Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; and that the name is not for a valid non-commercial use, and instead is for sale to the highest bidder.

B. Respondent

Respondent’s contentions are that claimant already is using another similar domain name; and in any event, does not seek to compete with Claimant, and has not tried to sell the domain name, but plans to use it as a commercial site for sports memorabilia.

C. Complainant’s Additional Submission

Complainant’s additional submission was not considered.

Domain name shall be transferred to Complainant.

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.

Domain name is confusingly similar to claimant’s existing domain name, trademarks and common law rights. See Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000).

Respondent has no legitimate interest in the name or mark and therefore has no rights in the domain name.

Respondent admits desire to use domain name because of secondary meaning in violation of common law rights, sufficient to find bad faith for these purposes.