Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Gorstew Limited, Kingston, II, USA ("Complainant") represented by David B. Newman, of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosentahl. Respondent is Platinum Plus Travel, Inc., Lancaster, PA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "allsandals.com" 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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 1, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 2, 2001.

On March 5, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "allsandals.com" 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. 4.0 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 13, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 2, 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@allsandals.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 April 9, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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

On April 2, 2001, Respondent submitted a "Consent to Transfer" letter to the Forum with regard to the disputed domain name.

Complainant, Gorstew Limited & Unique Vacations, Inc., owns the registered mark SANDALS, which it has used in connection with hotel reservations services, sightseeingtours and motor vehicle transportation since 1981. In addition, Complainant has used its mark on a variety of merchandise associated with hotel and hospitality services.

Respondent, Platinum Plus Travel, Inc., is a travel agent and does not own, operate or manage any of the hotels that conduct business under the Complainant’s mark. However, since Respondent has been "a long time loyal customer with Unique Vacations," it is eager to get this disputed settled quickly and properly, and therefore has agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. To date, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to market and sell vacation packages under Complainant’s famous mark.

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) 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’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark, SANDALS.

The Panel finds that the Respondent’s domains name, allsandals.com, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-established mark because the disputed domain name fully incorporates the mark. See NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (finding that the "domain name ‘myniit.com,’ which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT"); ESPN, Inc. v. MySportCenter.com, FA 95326 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that the "domain name MYSPORTSCENTER.COM registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SportsCenter mark…"); 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 website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

The evidence shows that Respondent has agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, which demonstrates Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Domains For Sale, FA 96248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2001) (Respondent’s willingness to transfer the domain name at issue to Complainant, as reflected in its Response, is evidence that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Marcor International v. Langevin, FA 96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan 12, 2001) (Respondent’s willingness to transfer the domain name at issue indicates that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question).

Moreover, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; thus, the Panel is free to conclude Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. 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).

As a result, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Complainant has shown Respondent intentionally registered a domain name that fully incorporates Complainant’s famous mark, which demonstrates bad faith. See Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) ("The Respondent intentionally registered a domain name which uses the Complainant’s name. There is no reasonable possibility that the name karlalbrecht.com was selected at random. There may be circumstances where such a registration could be done in good faith, but absent such evidence, the Panel can only conclude that the registration was done in bad faith.").

Further, Respondent has agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, which also shows bad faith. See Land O' Lakes Inc. v Offbeat Media Inc., FA 96451 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 23, 2001) (finding that the Respondent’s willingness to transfer the disputed domain name satisfies ¶ 4(b) of the Policy); Marcor International v. Langevin, FA 96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan 12, 2001) (Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name at issue coupled with its expressed willingness to transfer the name amply satisfies the bad faith requirements set forth in ICANN Policy).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

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, allsandals.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch

Dated: April 24, 2001