Domain Name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - Mark - Identical - Confusingly similar - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use - No legitimate interest - Disrupting competitor's business – Default – Commercial gain. 

Complainant has been using the mark and trade name, DICKEY-john, since 1968, and has numerous Federal registrations incorporating the term.  Complainant promotes and advertises its mark on its website at "dickey-john.com."  Respondent, a business competitor of Complainant registered and uses the domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM.  

Held, Name Transferred to Complainant.
 
Respondent's domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant's trade name and mark to which Complainant has no rights.  Consumers will likely be confused because of the identical nature of the name of the products.  By failing to respond to the Complainant, Respondent has not demonstrated any legitimate rights or interests.

Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.  The name was registered by Respondent primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business.  Respondent used the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's website and thereby intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as a source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website or the location of a product or service. 
 

Policies referred to
ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy

Registration Agreements referred to
--

Panel Decisions referred to
--

Cases referred to
--

Banks, Daniel B. Jr., Panelist:  -

The above matter came on for an administrative hearing on June 20, 2000 before the undersigned on the Complaint of Dickey-john Corporation, hereafter "Complainant", against Sensor-1, Inc., hereafter "Respondent". The Complainant was represented by counsel.  The Respondent did not file a response and was not represented.
            Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION is made:

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
Domain Name: DICKEYJOHN.COM
Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions
Domain Name Registrant: Sensor-1, Inc.
Date of Registration: January 28, 2000.  
Date Complaint Filed: May 16, 2000.
Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding: May 19, 2000.
Date of Response: Respondent did not file a response as required by Rule 5(a).
Remedy requested by Complainant: Transfer of Domain Name to Complainant.
            After reviewing the Complaint and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to the Respondent in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c).  In compliance with Rule 4(d), The Forum immediately notified Network Solutions, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative proceeding had commenced.
            The Respondent registered the domain name with Network Solutions, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name.  By registering its domain name with Network Solutions, the Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN'S Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.  

FINDINGS OF FACT
1.      The Complainant Dickey-john Corporation, Inc. has been using the mark and trade name DICKEY-john since 1968.  That name is used in connection with electronic agricultural products such as seed monitors, seed planters, seed sensors, planter monitors, shaft monitors, combine monitors, grain moisture testers and other electronic products.  
2.      Complainant has extensively promoted and advertised its DICKEY-john mark and trade name in trade journals, trade-shows, brochures and the like.
3.      Complainant enjoys a superb reputation in its industry and its products serve as standards in the industry.  
4.      Complainant promotes and advertises its DICKEY-john mark and products on its web site at dickey-john.com.  That domain name was reserved by Complainant on November 5, 1997.
5.      Complainant has numerous incontestable federal registrations incorporating the term DICKEY-john.
6.      As a result of Complainant's extensive use, advertisement and promotion of it's mark, the agricultural products market has come to recognize the words "DICKEY-john" as being the Complainant, DICKEY-john Corporation. 
7.      The Respondent registered the domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM on January 28, 2000.
8.      Respondent is a business competitor of Complainant and sells seed monitors, seed sensors, planter monitors and related products.
9.      Respondent is also in the business of repairing electronic agricultural products and advertises that it repairs DICKEY-john products.  
10.  Respondent's domain name registration "DICKEYJOHN.COM" is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's trade name, mark and domain name "dickey-john.com".  The only difference is in the use of capital letters and a hyphen.
11.  Consumers will likely be confused by the Respondent's domain name because of the identical nature of the name and the Respondent's business of selling and repairing similar products.
12.  The Respondent has failed to respond to the complaint and therefore has not demonstrated any legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM.
13.  The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.  The following is evidence of Respondent's bad faith in registering the domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM:
a.       Contrary to ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iii), Respondent wrongfully registered the domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor although Respondent knew or should have known that the domain name registration DICKEYJOHN.COM would disrupt the business of an entity already using the identical name in the identical competitive market, and
b.      Respondent, without any established legitimate basis for doing so, used the domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's web site and, in doing so, intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark and trade name as being a source, sponsor, affiliate, or endorser of Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent's web site, inasmuch as Complainant and Respondent sell similar or the same products in the same competitive market.
14.  Respondent has refused the Complainant's request to transfer the domain name.
15.  The Complainant's prayer for relief requests that the domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM be transferred from Respondent to Complainant

CONCLUSIONS
            The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interest to serve as the Arbitrator in this proceeding.  Having been duly selected and being impartial, the undersigned makes the following findings and conclusions:
1.      The domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM registered by Respondent on January 28, 2000, with Network Solutions is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant's trade name and mark to which Complainant has rights, and to which the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests.
2.      The domain name DICKEYJOHN.COM was registered and is being used in bad faith in that the Respondent registered the name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor who already uses the identical name in the same competitive market and the Respondent used the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's web site and thereby intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark and trade name as a source, sponsor, affiliate, or endorser of Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service.

DECISION
            Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(I), it is decided as follows:
            THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME DICKEYJOHN.COM, REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT SENSOR-1, INC., BE TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT DICKEY-john Corporation.

Dated: June 21, 2000,
by Judge Daniel B. Banks, Jr. (Ret.), Arbitrator