Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Cambridge Technology Partners (Massachusetts), Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Deborah J. Peckham, of Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP. Respondent is Joe Mastriano, Sugarland, TX, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "CAMBRIDGETECHNOLOGYPARTNERS.COM" registered with Internet Domain Registrars.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 5, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 5, 2001.

On February 9, 2001, Internet Domain Registrars confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "CAMBRIDGETECHNOLOGYPARTNERS.COM" is registered with Internet Domain Registrars and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Internet Domain Registrars has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Registrars 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 13, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 5, 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@CAMBRIDGETECHNOLOGYPARTNERS.COM by e-mail.

Respondent submitted a brief e-mail communication to the Forum on March 5, 2001, which did not satisfy the requirements for a response as required by Paragraph 5(b) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules").

On March 12, 2001 Complainant made an additional submission objecting to consideration of Respondent’ submission and responding to the content of the Respondent’s communication. Having received no formal Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On March 13, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Rule 2(a) "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that Respondent’s domain name is identical to its registered mark CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS. Also, Complainant urges, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. And finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a formal response in this matter.

Complainant, Cambridge Technology Partners, Inc., owns the registered mark CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, which it has used since 1991 in connection with business management consulting services and systems development.

Currently, Complainant has pending trademark applications in many foreign jurisdictions.

Respondent, Joe Mastriano, registered the disputed domain name in December of 1999. Respondent indicated via an email to Complainant’s attorney that the domain name was acquired for the purpose of selling, and later offered to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant for thousands of dollars. After Complainant’s attorney advised Respondent of the law regarding "Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention," Respondent decided the domain name at issue was registered for a noncommercial use. To date, Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 15(a) of 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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a formal response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

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) 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.

Under the Policy, Complainant must show that it has rights in the mark and that the domain name at issue is identical to or confusingly similar to that mark. Here, Complainant’s rights are evidenced its registered mark, CAMBRIDGE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS. The domain name registered by Respondent, CAMBRIDGETECHNOLOGYPARTNERS.COM, is identical to Complainant’s well-established mark. See American Golf Corp. v. Perfect Web Corp., D2000-0908 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding that the domain name <americangolf.net> is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s AMERICAN GOLF marks); Football Ass’n Ltd. v. UKIP, D2000-1359 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that domain name "facup.com" is clearly identical to the FA CUP trademark belonging to Complainant); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)

Complainant has shown that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods, services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Adamovske Strojirny v Tatu Rautiainen, D2000-1394 (WIPO Dec. 20, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where Respondent is not commonly known by the distinct ADAST mark and has made no use of the domain name in question); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

In addition, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, which entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)

The evidence shows Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain name was to offer it for sale to the Complainant for an amount in excess of any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. This is evidence of bad faith. See Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, D2000-1347 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (failure to use the domain name in any context other than to offer it for sale to Complainant amounts to a use of the domain name in bad faith); see also Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out of pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name).

Further, Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name since its registration. This also permits an inference of bad faith. See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp. D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 (a) (iii) of the Policy).

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that CAMBRIDGETECHNOLOGYPARTNERS.COM be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.