Domain name – Domain name dispute resolution policy – Trademark – Identical – Confusingly similar – Legitimate rights – Bad faith – Default – Recognition.

Complainant owns the trademark, Camp Time and uses it in connection with its business.  Respondent registered the domain name camptime.com.  Internet users are directed to a site that sells domain names when they connect to Respondent’s site.

Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.

Respondent’s domain name is virtually identical to Complainant’s mark. 

Respondent is not commonly known by the name, nor is it using the site in connection with a bona fide offering of goods.  Respondent is using the name for its own profit.  Therefore, Respondent does not have legitimate rights in the name.

Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names in order to prevent the owners of the trademarks from using them.  Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights to the mark and was aware that the domain name would prevent Complainant from reflecting the name on the Internet.  Respondent’s intent was to sell the name to Complainant or to competitors for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket expenses.

Policies referred to

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

Panel decisions referred to

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

Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).

The Board of Governors of the University of Alberta v. Michael Katz d.b.a. Domain Names For Sale, D2000-0378 (WIPO June 22, 2000).

Johnson, Panelist: -

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME(s) 

The domain name at issue is “CAMPTIME.COM”, registered with Melbourne IT
DBA Internet Names Worldwide (Internet Names Worldwide).

PANELIST 

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The
Forum") electronically on 06/05/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on 06/05/2000.

On 06/05/2000, Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to The Forum
that the domain name, “CAMPTIME.COM”, is registered with Internet Names
Worldwide and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 

On 06/07/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 06/27/2000
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 06/27/2000, 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 06/29/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson
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 its trademark registered for and in use by the Complainant.  Further,
the Complainant contends that the Respondent is a Cybersquatter, has no rights or
legitimate interests to the domain name, and has registered and is using the domain
name in bad faith. 

B.     Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the U.S. trademark CAMP TIME (filed: Dec. 13, 1982;
registered Sept. 11, 1984; No. 1,294,315) for collapsible foldable tables and
stools for camping.  Complainant currently markets its products on the website
<camptimeinc.com> because CAMPTIME.COM was taken by the Respondent. 
The Complainant also recently registered <camptime.org> and <camptime.net>.

The Respondent has registered the domain name CAMPTIME.COM.  When this
domain name is entered into the computer, the user is brought to a site advertising
ideatrade.com, a site that sells domain names.

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.

The Complainant has offered exhibits in support of its claim and the assertions
made therein; the Respondent has submitted no response in the matter.  The
Respondent’s failure to dispute the allegations of the Complainant permits the
inference that the Complainant’s allegations are true. See Hewlett-Packard
Company v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).  Further,
the Respondent’s failure to respond leads one to believe that the Respondent
knows that its website is misleading.  See Hewlett-Packard Company v. Full
System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).  Applying the Policy to the
issue in this case furthers these inferences.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has rights in the domain name “CAMPTIME.COM”. 

The Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark
except for the addition of the domain name level designation “com”.  When
potential clients seek the Complainant’s services on the Internet, the Complainant’s
mark is more than likely the first domain name entered.  This association is vital in
maintaining a business in today’s e-commerce society and the integrity of the mark.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not assert any rights or legitimate interests to 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 Respondent’s lack of a response in this matter
supports the inference that he purchased the domain name in question knowing of
the Complainant’s rights in the name and looking for the opportunity to sell the
name at a premium price. See EAuto, Inc. v. Available-Domain-Names.com, d/b/a
Intellectual-Assets.com, Inc., D2000-0120 (WIPO April 13, 2000).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Respondent does not deny that the name was registered in bad faith.

The Respondent registered and is using the domain name in question to prevent the
owner of the trademark (the Complainant) from reflecting the mark in a domain
name.  The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of
such conduct.  Policy  4(b)(ii).  When the Respondent purchased the said domain
name, he knew or should have known that it would attract people searching for the
Complainant’s official site.  The Respondent was obviously aware of the existence
of the Complainant and must have known that registration of the domain name
would prevent the Complainant from reflecting the name on the Internet.  See The
Board of Governors of the University of Alberta v. Michael Katz d.b.a. Domain
Names for Sale, D2000-0378 (WIPO June 22, 2000).

The Respondent is clearly in the business of domain name speculation, as
evidenced by the contact information provided to the domain name register.  His
registration of numerous names (available on the site in question) suggests a pattern
of conduct.  Policy  4(b)(ii).  Correspondence by the Respondent shows
Respondent’s intent to sell trademarked domain names for “$3-5K…instead of
[the companies] pursuing more costly legal actions.”  The Respondent registered
and is using the name in question for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or
the Complainant’s competitors, for 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,
“CAMPTIME.COM” be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.