Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Gorstew Limited and Unique Vacations Inc., Kingston, JAMAICA ("Complainant") represented by David B. Newman, of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. Respondent is Camelot Research, Suwanee, GA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "all-inclusive-sandals.com" registered with Tucows.

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 Panelist in this proceeding.

Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 27, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 30, 2001.

On April 4, 2001, Tucows confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "all-inclusive-sandals.com" is registered with Tucows and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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 April 12, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of May 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@all-inclusive-sandals.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 May 11,2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-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 Respondent.

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

B. Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Gorstew Limited & Unique Vacations, Inc., owns the registered mark SANDALS, which it has used since 1981 in connection with hotel reservation services, sightseeing tours and motor vehicle transportation. In addition, Complainant’s mark is used on merchandise associated with hotel and hospitality services. Complainant’s mark is advertised extensively throughout the world.

Respondent, Camelot Research, registered the disputed domain name January of 2000. Respondent is not a travel agent and does not own, operate or manage any of the hotels that conduct business under Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any form. To date, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name 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.

In this case, Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered SANDALS mark.

Respondent’s domain name, all-inclusive-sandals.com, is confusingly similar because the domain name combines Complainant’s mark with generic terms that are directly associated with Complainant’s business. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the Respondent’s domain name combines the Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the Complainant’s business); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Matthew Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names of "caterpillarparts.com" and "caterpillarspares.com" were found to be confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of "Caterpillar" and "Caterpillar Design" because "the idea suggested by the disputed domain names and the trademarks was that the goods and services offered in association with the domain name are manufactured by or sold by the Complainant or one of the Complainants approved distributors. The disputed trademarks contain one distinct component, the word Caterpillar.").

Also, the disputed domain name is so confusingly similar a reasonable Internet user would assume that the domain name is somehow connected to Complainant’s well-established mark. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainant’s marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the 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).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or 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 disputed domain name; therefore, the Panel is free to conclude Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See 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"); see also 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).

Respondent has passively held the disputed domain name since its registration, which demonstrates 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).

Further, the evidence supports the conclusion that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its web site, or other online location, via a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attracted users to a web site sponsored by the Respondent and created confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of that web site); see also Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET and Hussain, D2000-1214 (Nov. 26, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent failed to use the domain name and (2) it is clear that Respondent registered the domain name as an opportunistic attempt to gain from the goodwill of the Complainant).

Finally, given the popularity of Complainant’s mark, Respondent knew, or should have known of Complainant’s famous mark prior to registering the disputed domain, which also shows bad faith. See Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (finding that the fact "that the Respondent chose to register a well known mark to which he has no connections or rights indicates that he was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue"); see also E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Oak Inv. Group, D2000-1213 (WIPO Nov. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where (1) Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s famous GALLO marks and (2) Respondent made no use of the domain name "winegallo.com").

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

Therefore, it is Ordered that the domain name, all-inclusive-sandals.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.