Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Lone Wolf Guide Service, Nashville, TN, USA ("Complainant"). Respondent is Lone Wolf Guide Service, Dundee, IL, USA ("Respondent") represented by Gilbert Arndt.

The domain name at issue is "lonewolfguideservice.com" registered with Innerwise.

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. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 12, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 16, 2001.

On February 19, 2001, Innerwise confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "lonewolfguideservice.com" is registered with Innerwise and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Innerwise has verified that Respondent is bound by the Innerwise 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@lonewolfguideservice.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 27, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one-member Panel, the Forum appointed Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Lone Wolf Guide Service, is registered with the state of Montana and uses its mark in advertising to promote various hunting and sightseeing expeditions. Complainant’s mark was registered March 30, 2000, but Complainant has used the mark for over 20 years. In that use, Complainant has invested tens of thousands of dollars in promotion and advertising. In addition, Complainant maintains a web site at lonewolfguide.com.

Respondent, Lone Wolf Guide Service, registered the disputed domain name July of 2000. The disputed domain name directly links to a web site designed and hosted by Hunting Net. Currently, Respondent is using its domain name to link Internet users to Complainant’s web address as well as to HuntingNet.com, which sells various hunting products and services.

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 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 Respondent is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which 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.

Complainant established rights in its registered mark, Lone Wolf Guide Service.

Respondent’s domain name, lonewolfguideservice.com, on its face is identical to Complainants 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); Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding that the domain name "wembleystadium.net" is identical to the WEMBLEY STADIUM mark).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant established rights to the mark that was used by Respondent to create the domain name in issue. Respondent has used the domain name to divert Internet users seeking to access Complainant’s services and has created a domain name that also is confusingly similar to a web site sponsored by another commercial entity. This use does not establish rights or interests in the domain name for Respondent. See 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); see also Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enter., FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that Respondent registered the domain name <householdbank.com>, which incorporates Complainant’s HOUSEHOLD BANK mark, with hopes of attracting Complainant’s customers and thus finding no rights or legitimate interests).

Moreover, Respondent failed to assert rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which allows the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See AT&T Corp. v. Domains by Brian Evans, D2000-0790 (WIPO Sept. 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent does not provide any documentation on the existence of this company that might show what the company’s business was, or how the company’s years of existence, if it ever existed, might mesh with Complainant’s trademark claims); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that "Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the Domain Names").

Consequently, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights and interests in the mark that is contained within the disputed domain name and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Complainant has shown that Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent’s domain name is used to connect Internet customers to commercial entities, including Complainant’s commercial entity and the disputed domain name also links these Internet customers to a site that sells hunting equipment and services. The evidence permits a strong inference that Respondent knew when it registered the domain name that such use would create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark strictly for Respondent’s commercial gain. This constitutes evidence of bad faith. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks); Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the Complainant’s well known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).

Further, the evidence permits the inference that Respondent knowingly attempted to infringe upon Complainant’s mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name because Respondent’s domain name provides a link to Complainant’s own web site via the disputed domain name. This is obvious bad faith use of another’s mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated bad faith where Respondent was aware of Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the "totality of circumstances").

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed 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.

Thus, it is Ordered that the domain name, lonewolfguideservice.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.