Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Locsys, Inc., Tucson, AZ, USA ("Complainant") represented by Peter D. Eisner, of Mendelsohn, Oseran & Eisner, P.C. Respondent is Telson a/k/a Fleetrak, Inc., Jersey City, NJ, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "locsys.net" registered with Network Solutions, Inc..

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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 21, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 21, 2001.

On March 22, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "locsys.net" is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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 March 22, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 11, 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@locsys.net 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 April 17, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody 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 Respondent.

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

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Locsys, Inc., owns the registered mark LOCSYS, which it uses in connection with services that allow vehicle tracking throughout the world. Complainant is also an authorized re-seller and provides monthly airtime for certain wireless providers.

Respondent, Telson d.b.a. Fleetrak, Inc., uses the disputed domain name for the promotion and sale of various products and services that are highly similar, if not identical to Complainant’s products and services. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark for any purpose.

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 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.

Under the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in the mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

Accordingly, Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark LOCSYS. Respondent’s domain name, locsys.net, is identical to Complainant’s registered 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); Interstellar Starship Services Ltd. v. EPIX, Inc., 983 F.Supp. 1331, 1335 (D.Or. 1997) (epix.com "is the same mark" as EPIX).

Also, the disputed domain name is so confusingly similar a reasonable Internet user would assume the domain name is somehow associated with Complainant’s mark. See 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 website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent authorized to use Complainant’s registered mark. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark or never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaFaive, FA 95407 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 27, 2000) (finding that "unauthorized providing of information and services under a mark owned by a third party cannot be said to be the bona fide offering of goods or services").

Further, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which entitles the Panel to conclude it has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proven); see also 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).

The evidence supports the conclusion that Respondent is Complainant’s competitor; therefore, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also America Online Inc. v. Shenzhen JZT Computer Software Co. Ltd, D2000-0809 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that "gameicq.com" and "gameicq.net" are obviously connected with services provided with the world-wide business of ICQ and the very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith).

Moreover, Respondent offers products and services via the disputed domain name that are similar (if not identical) to Complainant’s; therefore, Respondent had to have registered the disputed domain name intentionally to attract Internet users to its web site via a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had 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 web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks); see also Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a web site where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).

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

Therefore, it is Ordered that the domain name, locsys.net, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.