Domain name – Domain name dispute resolution – Registered trademark – No attempt to use domain – Offer of sale – Identical to mark – No rights or legitimate interest – Not commonly known – No bona fide goods or services – No legitimate noncommercial or fair use – No evidence presented – Bad faith registration – Cannot deny claim – Domain name speculation business.

Complainant owns registered trademark for BANCO GENERAL for use in its business as a financial institution. Complainant even registered domain name BANCO-GENERAL.COM. Respondent registered domain name BANCOGENERAL.COM but has not made any attempts to use the domain name. Complainant asks for transfer of the domain name. Respondent did not submit a response.

Held, Name Transferred

The domain name in question is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark--the only difference is the inclusion of the domain name level designation, which is not a legally material difference. 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  Respondent is not commonly known by the name, nor is Respondent using the site to offer bona fide goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent did not produce any evidence to refute Complainant’s claim of no rights or legitimate interests.

The domain name was registered in bad faith. Complainant inquired about buying the domain name and Respondent mentioned a price exceeding the cost of registration of the domain. Moreover, Respondent is involved in the business of domain name speculation. This is demonstrated by the contact information provided to the domain name register. Respondent’s lack of response means they cannot deny Complainant’s allegations of bad faith registration.

Policies referred to

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted August 26, 1999

Cases referred to

Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000)

Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., No. D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000)

EAuto, Inc. v. Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., D2000-0120 (WIPO April 13, 2000)
 

Panel Decision referred to
--

Kalina, Panelist: -

PARTIES
The Complainant is Banco General, Panama ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Webmaster Ams/Uk Billing (Domain for Sale), London, Great Britain ("Respondent").

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s) 
The domain name at issue is "BANCOGENERAL.COM", registered with Network Solutions Inc. ("NSI").

PANELIST(s)
Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/08/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/08/2000. 
On 06/08/200, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "BANCOGENERAL.COM" is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.
A Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/10/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email. 
On 07/10/2000, 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 July 17, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform 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.

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

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical to and confusingly similar to its trademark registered for and in use by the Complainant. Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, and that the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. 
A. Respondent 
The Respondent submitted no response in this matter and, accordingly, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed to be true.

FINDINGS
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark BANCO GENERAL (registered: 12/27/1984). The Complainant is a credited financial institution in the Republic of Panama. The Complainant has registered and uses the domain name <banco-general.com> to conduct business on the Internet. 
The Respondent registered the domain name in question on June 3, 1999. The Respondent has made no attempt to use the domain name. 
The Complainant contacted the Respondent to see if the Respondent was interested in selling the domain name. The Respondent replied that he had received an offer for $1,500,000 and that the Complainant could submit an offer. The Complainant offered $500 plus registration fees on 03/02/2000. The Complainant has received no response from the Respondent.

DISCUSSION 
Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to support a claim 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has rights in the registered trademark BANCO GENERAL. The Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark, except for the addition of the domain name level designation "com". See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as "net" or "com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent asserts no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. 
The name does not reflect a name by which the Respondent is commonly known, nor is the Respondent using the site in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy  4(c)(i)-(iii). Rather, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s registered mark for the Respondent’s own profit.
The failure of Respondent to produce evidence sufficient to rebut Complainant's allegations entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., No. D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and, therefore, cannot deny that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as alleged by Complainant.
The Respondent is clearly in the business of domain name speculation, as evidenced by the contact information provided to the domain name register. Correspondence by the Respondent shows Respondent’s intent to sell the trademarked domain name valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Policy  4(b)(i). See EAuto, Inc. v. Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., D2000-0120 (WIPO April 13, 2000).
Based on the preceding facts, the panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. 

DECISION
Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted. 
Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "BANCOGENERAL.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.