Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

1. Parties and Contested Domain Name

1.1 The Complainant is Commonwealth Hotels Inc., a corporation with an office in Covington, Kentucky, United States of America.

1.2 The Respondent is CCD Internet of Manchester, England.

1.3 The disputed domain name is commonwealthhotels.com. The Registrar for the domain name is Tucows.com.

1.4 This proceeding is pursuant to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”) and ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”). The Tucows.com Domain Name Registration Agreement regarding the commonwealthhotels.com domain name subjects the Respondent to Tucows.com’s Dispute Policy, which is currently the Policy.

2. Procedural History

2.1 Based upon information provided by eResolution’s Clerk’s Office, the procedural history regarding this matter is as follows:

2.1.1 The electronic version of the Complainant’s complaint form was filed on-line through eResolution’s Web site on March 20, 2001. The hardcopy of the complaint form and annexes were received by the Clerk’s Office on April 5, 2001. Payment was received by the Clerk’s Office on March 30, 2001.

2.1.2 Upon receiving all the required information, eResolution’s Clerk’s Office proceeded to: (i) confirm the identity of the Registrar for the contested domain name; (ii) verify the Registrar’s Whois database and confirm all the required contact information for the Respondent; (iii) verify if the contested domain name resolved to an active Web page; and (iv) verify if the complaint was administratively compliant.

2.1.3 The inquiry led eResolution’s Clerk’s Office to the following conclusions: (i) the Registrar is Tucows.com.; (ii) the Whois database contained all the required contact information; (iii) the contested domain name resolved to an active Web page; and (iv) the complaint is administratively compliant.

2.1.4 On March 20, 2001, eResolution’s Clerk’s Office sent an email to the Registrar to obtain a copy of the Registration Agreement. The requested document was received on March 27, 2001.

2.1.5 eResolution’s Clerk’s Office then proceeded to send a copy of the complaint form and the required cover sheet to the Respondent, in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. According to the postal tracking system, the documents were delivered to the Respondent.

2.1.6 eResolution’s Clerk’s Office fulfilled all its responsibilities under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules in connection with forwarding the complaint to the Respondent, and notifying the Complainant, the Registrar, and ICANN on April 9, 2001. That date is the commencement date of this administrative proceeding.

2.1.7 &nbs p; The electronic version of the Respondent’s response was filed on-line through eResolution’s Web site on April 30, 2001. The hardcopy of the response was received by eResolution’s Clerk’s Office on May 1, 2001.

2.1.8 &nbsp ; On May 2, 2001, eResolution’s Clerk’s Office contacted Bradley J. Freedman and requested that he act as Panelist in this proceeding.

2.1.9 &nbsp ; On May 3, 2001, Bradley J. Freedman agreed to act as Panelist in this proceeding and filed the necessary Declaration of Independence and Impartiality.

2.1.10 On May 3, 2001, eResolution’s Clerk’s Office forwarded a username and a password to Bradley J. Freedman, allowing him to access the complaint form, the response form, and the evidence submitted by the parties through eResolution’s Automated Docket Management System.

2.1.11 On May 3, 2001, the parties were notified that Bradley J. Freedman had been appointed as Panelist in this proceeding, and that a decision was to be, save exceptional circumstances, handed down on May 17, 2001.

3. Factual Background

3.1 The Panel proceeds on the basis of the following facts, which are established by the evidence and submissions of the parties:

3.1.1 The Complainant has been in the business of hotel ownership and management since 1986.

3.1.2 The Complainant uses the business name “Commonwealth Hotels, Inc.”, and is the registered owner of a trademark comprised of a design and the words commonwealth hotels, inc. The mark was registered on the United States Patent and Trademark Office principal register for use in association with “hotel management for others” services on November 16, 1993, and the Certificate of Registration indicates the first use of the mark to have been in September 1986.

3.1.3 The Complainant operates a Web site using the domain name commonwealth-hotels.com.

3.1.4 The Respondent is in the business of offering Internet-related services, including Web site design and development services. The Respondent’s Web site describes some of its services as follows:

CCD has produced almost 160 bespoke Web Sites since we started trading. Our expertise in this field is renowned and our design and technical skills constantly abreast with all the latest developments. … Each bespoke solution we offer is completely dependent on your goals. If your goals are not yet fully defined, we can help you to qualify how the world wide web will grow your business.

3.1.5 The Respondent registered the commonwealthhotels.com domain name on August 11, 2000.

3.1.6 The Respondent does not carry on business under the name “Commonwealth Hotels”, and does not use the commonwealth hotels trademark in connection with any wares or services.

4. Parties’ Contentions

4.1 &nbsp ; The Complainant submits as follows:

4.1.1 The Complainant is the owner of the commonwealth hotels, inc. trademark in the United States, and the commonwealthhotels.com domain name is “virtually exact in nature” to the Complainant’s mark.

4.1.2 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the commonwealthhotels.com domain name because the Complainant is the owner of the commonwealth hotels, inc. trademark and the Respondent is not in the hotel or hotelier business.

4.1.3 The Respondent registered and used the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in bad faith because it intended to “reserve a block of common names for the sole purpose of development and resale at a later date”.

4.2 The Respondent submits as follows:

4.2.1 The commonwealthhotels.com domain name is not the same as the Complainant’s commonwealth hotels, inc. trademark. The Complainant is not a registered company in the United Kingdom and the Complainant’s trademark is not registered or known in the United Kingdom.

4.2.2 The Complainant has no business interest in the United Kingdom, and is attempting to obtain the domain name to exploit the same opportunity as has been identified by the Respondent.

4.2.3 The Respondent has a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name because the Respondent is working on a business plan to use the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in connection with the Commonwealth Games in its home town, Manchester, England, in July 2002.

4.2.4 The Respondent has not registered and used the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in bad faith because it intends to use the domain name in connection with the Commonwealth Games. “Commonwealth” is not a registrable trademark.

5. Discussion and Findings

5.1 The Policy is narrow in scope. It applies only to disputes involving alleged bad faith registration and use of domain names – conduct commonly known as "cybersquatting" or "cyberpiracy". The Policy does not apply to other kinds of disputes between trademark owners and domain name registrants. This reflects a cautious approach to a novel form of Internet dispute resolution and the balancing of a wide range of perspectives regarding the regulation of Internet conduct. See Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, Case No. D2000-0044 (March 16, 2000); Quarterview v. Quarterview Co., Case No. AF-0209 (March 16, 2000); Libro AG v. NA Global Link Limited, Case No. D 2000-0186 (May 16, 2000); and the ICANN Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, October 24, 1999, www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm, at paragraph 4.1(c).

5.2 The limited scope of the Policy is reflected in its provisions. Policy paragraph 4(a) provides that the Policy applies only where a complainant asserts that: (i) the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

5.3 The burden is on the Complainant to prove each of the three requirements of Policy paragraph 4(a). It is not sufficient for the Complainant to make assertions without providing proof. See Radio Globo SA v. Diogo Pimentel, Case No. D2000-1705 (Jan. 31, 2001).

& nbsp; (i) The Complainant’s Trademark Rights

5.4 The Complainant asserts that it is the owner of the commonwealth hotels, inc. trademark registered in the United States, and that it uses that mark in association with hotel ownership and management. The Complainant’s assertions in this regard are supported by documentary evidence, and are not disputed by the Respondent.

5.5 The Respondent argues that the Complainant does not have any trademark rights in the United Kingdom. However, the Policy does not require that a complainant’s trademark rights arise in the same jurisdiction in which the respondent carries on business. The fact that a complainant and respondent carry on business in different jurisdictions may be relevant to the other two requirements of the Policy – the respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the domain name and the respondent’s bad faith – but that fact is not relevant to the first element of the Policy.

5.6 Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the commonwealth hotels, inc. trademark.

5.7 The Policy requires that the commonwealthhotels.com domain name be “identical or confusingly similar” to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the challenged domain name is “virtually exact in nature” to its trademark. The Respondent disagrees.

5.8 When comparing a challenged domain name and a trademark, the addition of the .com suffix is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether the domain name it is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. See Rollerblade Inc. v. Chris McGrady, Case No. D2000-0429 (June 25, 2000); and Nintendo of America Inc. v. Alex Jones, Case No. D2000-0998 (November 17, 2000). Rather, one looks to the second-level domain for such a determination, since the .com suffix is merely descriptive of the registry services and is not an identifier of a source of goods or services. See Experience Hendrix LLC v. Denny Hammerton and the Jimi Hendrix Fan Club, Case No. D2000-0364 (August 2, 2000).

5.9 The mere omission of spaces between the components of a trademark when used in a domain name does not mean that the domain name and the mark cease to be identical. The omission of spaces is simply a function of the technological limitations of domain names, and should be disregarded when determining whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark. See for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and Trigon Insurance Company Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield v. InterActive Communications Inc., Case No. D2000-0788 (August 28, 2000).

5.10 Design elements cannot be captured in a domain name. Accordingly, the logo portion of a complainant's trademark is irrelevant for the purpose of determining whether a challenged domain name and trademark are identical or confusingly similar. See Football Club des Girondins de Bordeaux v. Arr, Case No. D2000-0149 (May 19, 2000); General Machine Products Company Inc. v. Prime Domains, Case No. NAF FA0001000092531 (January 26, 2000); and Packaging World Inc. v. Zynpak Packaging Products Inc., Case No. AF-0233 (July 28, 2000).

5.11 Aside from the design element, spaces and punctuation of the Complainant’s commonwealth hotels, inc. trademark, the only difference between the challenged domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is the word “Inc.”.

5.12 The Policy and the Rules do not provide any guidance with respect to the test to be applied regarding the “confusingly similar” criterion of the Policy. There is an inconsistency in previous decisions in this regard. Some panels have undertaken a literal comparison of the domain name and the trademark, and have not considered whether there is any source confusion. Other panels have considered whether there is source confusion and have undertaken a “likelihood of confusion” analysis as required by American trademark law, which involves a consideration of all of the circumstances including the strength of the complainant’s mark, the sophistication of likely consumers, and the nature of the wares and services with which the domain name and conflicting mark are used. See Smoky Mountain Knife Works v. Deon Carpenter, Case No. AF-230 (July 3, 2000); Newport News Inc. v. VCV Internet, Case No. AF-0238 (July 18, 2000); Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Walsucks and Walmarket Puerto Rico, Case No. D2000-0477 (July 20, 2000); Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, Case No. D2000-0662 (September 19, 2000); and Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party, Case No. D2000-1415 (January 23, 2001).

5.13 The Panel considers the appropriate test for “confusing similarity” to be a literal comparison of the challenged domain name and conflicting mark. This view is supported by the following considerations:

(a) The language of Policy paragraph 4(a) should be interpreted in a purposive manner consistent with the Policy’s remedial nature and objective – to prevent the extortionate behaviour known as “cybersquatting”.

(b) The language of Policy paragraph 4(a) does not invoke a “likelihood of confusion” test, as contrasted with Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) which expressly refers to a “likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location” as an indication of bad faith domain name use.

(c) The Policy is international and, in the absence of express language, it is inappropriate to import into Policy paragraph 4(a) a test that may not exist under national trademark laws other than those of the United States and England.

(d) The procedure contemplated by the Policy is not well-suited to the kinds of difficult factual issues presented by a conventional likelihood of confusion analysis. In particular, the Policy is intended to be a relatively quick and inexpensive process, panels must make factual determinations based upon written submissions and documentary evidence, complainants have no right of reply without panel permission, and parties are often not represented by counsel (as in this case).

5.14 Ap plying the literal comparison test, the Panel finds that the commonwealthhotels.com domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

& nbsp; (ii) The Respondent’s Rights and Legitimate Interests

5.15 Po licy paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the commonwealthhotels.com domain name. The burden on the Complainant in this regard is relatively light, however, because the nature of the Respondent’s rights or interests, if any, in the domain name lies most directly within the Respondent’s knowledge. See Packaging World Inc. v. Zynpak Packaging Products Inc., Case No. AF-0233 (July 28, 2000); Educational Testing Service v. Netkorea Co., Case No. D2000-0087 (July 3, 2000); Grove Broadcasting Co. Ltd. v. Telesystems Communications Limited, Case No. D2000-0158 (May 9, 2000); and Nicole Kidman v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a Cupcake Party, Case No. D2000-1415 (January 23, 2001).

5.16 Paragraph 4(c) provides that the Panel shall find that the Respondent has legitimate rights or interests in the commonwealthhotels.com domain name if, on the evidence:

(i) &nbsp ; before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the commonwealthhotels.com domain name or a name corresponding to the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) &nbs p; the Respondent has been commonly known by the commonwealthhotels.com domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) &nb sp; the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the commonwealthhotels.com domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark or service mark.

5.17 The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not in the hotel or hotelier business, and is not conducting, and never has conducted, any business under any trademark that is the same or similar to the commonwealthhotels.com domain name.

5.18 The Respondent acknowledges it is not a hotelier and does not operate as one, but asserts that it registered the commonwealthhotels.com domain name for use in connection with the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in July 2002. The Respondent contends that it was involved in “a strategic proposal with the organizers of the Commonwealth Games” and provided the Panel with a copy of a “Commonwealth Games Project Agenda”. However, that document is undated and makes no reference to the commonwealthhotels.com domain name.

5.19 The registration and use of a domain name is not illegitimate merely because the domain name is not derived from a trademark or trade name used by the registrant. See CRS Technology Corporation v. Condenet Inc., Case No. FA0002000093547 (March 28, 2000). On the other hand, the registration of a domain name is not, by itself, sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Barney’s Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board, Case No. D2000-0059 (April 2, 2000); and Emeril Legasse v. VPOP Technologies, Case No. FA0003000094373 (May 8, 2000). Absent trademark or trade name rights held by the registrant, there must be something more, such as demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in good faith, before the registrant can assert rights or legitimate interests in the domain name within the meaning of the Policy. Speculation in domain names is not recognized by the Policy as a legitimate interest. See Libro AG v. NA Global Link Limited, Case No. D 2000-0186 (May 16, 2000); and VZ VermogensZentrum AG v. Anything.com, Case No. D2000-0527 (August 22, 2000).

5.20 Re garding Policy paragraph 4(c)(i), the Panel is not satisfied that before any notice to the Respondent of this dispute the Respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the commonwealthhotels.com domain name or a name corresponding to the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that it had been involved in “demonstrable preparations” to use the domain name before it received notice of this dispute. Also, the Panel notes that on March 2, 2001 the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant advising that the Respondent had “decided not to progress our commonwealth idea”, and was “considering offering the domain discussed for sale”. (This email and others are discussed below.)

5.21 In considering this matter, the Panel has, on its own initiative, accessed the Internet to determine the manner in which the commonwealthhotels.com domain name is currently being used. The domain name now resolves to a static Web site entitled “Commonwealth Hotels”, which displays a photograph of a hotel and the following text:

Your guide for Hotels in Manchester, UK during the Commonwealth Games. If you are a Hotel in Manchester and you have accommodation available during the games, let CCD know and we will spotlight you on this web site.”

This use of the domain name is not referenced in the parties’ submissions, and the Panel infers that it commenced after this proceeding was initiated and submissions were delivered to the Panel. The recent use of the commonwealthhotels.com domain name, while consistent with the Respondent’s submissions, does not satisfy Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). See Corinthians Licenciamentos LTDA v. David Sallen, Case No. D2000-0461 (July 17, 2000); and e-Duction Inc. v. Zuccarini, Case No. D2000-1369 (February 5, 2001).

5.22 Re garding Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii), the Panel finds that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the commonwealthhotels.com domain name.

5.23 Re garding Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii), the Respondent has asserted an intention to use the commonwealthhotels.com domain name for a commercial purpose but in a manner that is arguably descriptive rather than source-identifying. However, the Respondent did not commence such use until after the complaint was filed and after advising the Complainant that the Respondent had “decided not to progress our commonwealth idea”. In the circumstances, the Panel is not satisfied that the Respondent has engaged in a “fair use” of the domain name within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii).

5.24 Fo r these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the commonwealthhotels.com domain name.

&nbs p; (iii) Bad Faith Registration and Use

5.25 It is not enough for the Complainant to establish that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the commonwealthhotels.com domain name. Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) requires the Complainant to assert and prove that the Respondent registered and has used the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in bad faith.

5.26 Policy paragraph 4(b) provides that the following circumstances are deemed to be evidence that a respondent has registered and used a domain name in bad faith:

(i) &nbsp ; circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name or

(ii) &nbs p; the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) &nb sp; the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) &nbs p; by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its Web site or location or of a product or service on its Web site or location.

5.27 The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in bad faith because, in addition to its lack of legitimate interests in the domain name, the Respondent intended to “reserve a block of common names for the sole purpose of development and resale at a later date.” The Complainant has not provided any evidence of the alleged domain name registrations by the Respondent. Nevertheless, in support of its allegation, the Complainant relies upon the reference on the Respondent’s Web site to the creation of “bespoke” Web sites, which the Complainant says means “to engage or claim in advance; to reserve”.

5.28 The Respondent denies that it creates Web sites on speculation, and explains that its Web site reference to “bespoke” Web sites means that it designs Web sites to meet its clients’ “unique or individual” needs. The Respondent’s explanation is consistent with the Panel’s understanding of the meaning of “bespoke”. Nevertheless, the Panel notes that the commonwealthhotels.com domain name is currently used by the Respondent in connection with what purports to be a portal Web site that invites Manchester hotels to contact the Respondent in order to be highlighted on the Web site. There are no hotels referenced on the Web site.

5.29 There is no evidence that the Respondent knew or ought to have known of the Complainant or its trademark. The Respondent and the Complainant are not competitors. The Complainant’s registration of its trademark in the United States does not constitute constructive notice of the trademark to persons in other countries. The Policy does not require a person registering a domain name to conduct a prior trademark search in every country of the world for conflicting trademark rights. See Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v. Virtual Dates Inc., Case No. D2000-1612 (February 6, 2001) and Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v. Elad Cohen, Case No. D2000-0006 (January 22, 2001).

5.30 The Complainant has provided the Panel with copies of correspondence between the parties regarding the challenged domain name, presumably to indicate that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or its competitors. See Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). The documents indicate the following:

(a) The correspondence was initiated by the Complainant in October 2000, when it sent a letter to the Respondent inquiring of the Respondent’s interest in “Commonwealth Hotels”.

(b) The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s October 2000 letter, and the Complainant sent a follow-up letter on January 24, 2001.

(c) On January 24, 2001 there appears to have been a telephone conversation between the parties. The Panel was not informed of the substance of that telephone conversation.

(d) On March 2, 2001 the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant advising that the Respondent had “decided not to progress our commonwealth idea”, and was “considering offering the domain discussed for sale”. The Respondent indicated that they would consider “realistic offers”, and would make the domain name available to the market in 7 days time if they did not hear from the Complainant. The Complainant acknowledged receipt of that email.

(e) On March 6, 2001 the Respondent sent another email to the Complainant as follows:

We are preparing to offer this name via auctions which will be available globally. I am concerned that a competitor to yourselves may purchase this name. Have you an offer?

(f) On March 6, 2001 the Complainant responded with an offer to purchase the domain name for $1,000.

(g) On March 8, 2001, the Complainant sent an email to the Respondent asking for a reply to its offer. The Complainant also asserted trademark rights in the commonwealth holdings name.

(h) On March 12, 2001, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant denying any legal wrongdoing, and making a $10,000 counter-offer on a “without prejudice” basis.

(i) The Complainant commenced this proceeding on March 20, 2001.

5.31 The Panel notes that the Respondent’s March 8^th email was written on an express “without prejudice” basis after the Complainant asserted its trademark rights. Other panels have held that it is not appropriate for a panel to consider evidence of bona fide without prejudice negotiations. Zero International Holding GmbH & Co Kommanditgesellschaft v. Beyonet Services, Case No. D2000-0161 (May 12, 2000); CRS Technology Corporation v. Condenet Inc., Case No. FA0002000093547 (March 28, 2000); and LifePlan v. LifePlan, Case No. FA0005000094826 (July 13, 2000). The Respondent did not object to the Panel considering evidence of its without prejudice communications. In the circumstances, the Panel need not make an evidentiary ruling regarding this matter.

5.32 Aside from the negotiations between the parties, there is no evidence that that the Respondent’s activities regarding the registration and use of the commonwealthhotels.com domain name was directed in any way towards the Complainant. While not determinative, the Panel notes that the Respondent did not initiate contact with the Complainant and did not respond to the Complainant’s initial inquiry. In addition, the Respondent’s explanation that it registered the domain name to make a profit from its descriptive character and its connection to the 2002 Commonwealth Games in Manchester, England is not unreasonable. Speculation in generic or descriptive domain names is not sufficient to establish a right or legitimate interest in a domain name within the meaning of the Policy, but it does not constitute bad faith. See Libro AG v. NA Global Link Limited, Case No. D 2000-0186 (May 16, 2000); VZ VermogensZentrum AG v. Anything.com, Case No. D2000-0527 (August 22, 2000); Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v. Virtual Dates Inc., Case No. D2000-1612 (February 6, 2001); and Radio Globo SA v. Diogo Pimentel, Case No. D2000-1705 (January 31, 2001).

5.33 In some circumstances, negotiations regarding the sale of a challenged domain name and proposals made in such discussions might be evidence of bad faith registration and use. In this case, some of the Respondent’s negotiation statements – particularly the 7 day offer, the reference to the Complainant’s competitors, and the $10,000 counter-offer – are troubling. Nevertheless, in the circumstances and in the absence of any other evidence of bad faith, those statements are not sufficient to prove that the Respondent registered the domain name “primarily” for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or a competitor, within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(b)(i).

5.34 For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not proven that the Respondent registered or has used the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in bad faith.

6. Conclusions

6.1 &nbs p; The Complainant has established that it has legitimate rights in its commonwealth hotels trademark and that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the commonwealthhotels.com domain name. However, the Complainant has not proven that the Respondent registered or has used the commonwealthhotels.com domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has not established all of the requirements set forth in Policy paragraph 4(a).

6.2 Accordingly, the Panel dismisses the complaint and denies the Complainant's request that registration of the commonwealthhotels.com domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

6.3 As noted above, the Policy is narrow in scope, the issues considered by the Panel are restricted, and the Panel has based its decision on the parties’ written submissions and documentary evidence. The Panel’s decision should not be read as a substantive determination on the merits of any trademark infringement or other dispute between the parties regarding the Respondent’s registration and use of the commonwealthhotels.com domain name.

_____________________________________________