Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Steamboat Chamber Resort Association, Inc., Steamboat Springs, CO, USA ("Complainant"). Respondent is Ed Mooney, Steamboat Springs, CO, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <steamboatchamber.com> registered with Melbourne IT.

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

Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 13, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 16, 2001.

On Feb 21, 2001, Melbourne IT confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <steamboatchamber.com> is registered with Melbourne IT and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne IT has verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne IT 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 28, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 13, 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 Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@steamboatchamber.com by e-mail.

Having received no 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 29, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "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, <steamboatchamber.com>, is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, STEAMBOAT CHAMBER. In addition, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the domain name at issue. And finally, Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent has not disputed the contentions addressed in the Complaint.

Complainant is a Colorado non-profit corporation formed to act as the chamber of commerce for the City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Complainant has been active in Steamboat since 1903. In 1971, Complainant was incorporated and became a resort association. Complainant is a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry. Complainant is the only chamber of commerce recognized for Steamboat Springs, Colorado. The service mark STEAMBOAT-CHAMBER is used to denote a community-wide network of lodging, restaurant and other tourist destination services that attract visitors from throughout the world.

On July 7, 1995, Complainant registered the domain name <steamboat-chamber.com> with Network Solutions.

Respondent is engaged in business of offering reservation services, principally for lodging in Steamboat Springs, Colorado, for profit, under the trade name "Steamboat Lodging Service."

On February 26, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name <steamboatchamber.com>. Initially, Respondent did not use the domain name.

In August of 1999, Complainant met with Respondent and expressed concern with Respondent’s registration because the name was deceivingly similar to Complainant’s domain name. During the course of the meeting, Respondent indicated that he might consider selling the domain name to the Chamber. Those discussions ended in August 1999.

Sometime following the meeting, Respondent developed a web site using the disputed domain name. On the web site, Respondent offered lodging reservation services. In creating the web site, Respondent downloaded and "clipped" certain copyrighted materials from Complainants’ web site.

On July 13, 1999, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent demanding that Respondent cease using copyrighted information from Complainant’s web site. As a result, Respondent reorganized the web site to delete his use of some of the copyrighted materials.

On July 12, 2000, Complainant sent another cease and desist letter to Respondent requesting that Respondent cease using the domain name <steamboatchamber.com>. In response to the cease and desist letter, Respondent erased the content from his web site and now shows the web site as being under construction. The web site under <steamboatchamber.com> now includes a link to <steamboatcolorado.com>, which is one of Respondent’s active web sites.

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 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 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.

Complainant has rights in the term STEAMBOAT-CHAMBER through common law trademark rights. See Fishtech v. Rossiter, FA 92976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the Complainant has common law rights in the mark "fishtech" which it has used since 1982).

Respondent’s domain name is identical to Complainant’s STEAMBOAT-CHAMBER mark. See Chernow Communications Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding "that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark").

Based on the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <steamboatchamber.com>. Respondent has not denied that assertion.

Respondent uses the domain name to direct Internet traffic to Respondent’s own web site. See Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s trademarks); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights and legitimate interests where the Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to his web sites).

Linking a domain name that infringes on another’s trademark rights to one’s own web site is not a bona fide use of the domain name. Respondent’s offering of services similar to those found at Complainant’s web site was not a bona fide offering of goods or services either. See America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that "[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and for the same business). The Panel concludes that Respondent does not satisfy the circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).

Respondent is not commonly known as "steamboatchamber." Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name in question. Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

Based on the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question.

Complainant contends that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. Respondent has not denied that assertion.

Respondent has shown bad faith by operating a confusingly similar web site with similar services to Complainant with a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark. See Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area).

The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

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 the domain name, <steamboatchamber.com>, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.