Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Spenco Medical Corporation Patty Smith, Waco, TX, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Extreme One Media Group, San Diego, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "2NDSKIN.COM", registered with Network Solutions Inc ("NSI").

The Panelists listed below each certify that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. Carolyn M. Johnson, Hon. Theodore R. Kupferman, Hon. James A. Carmody, Chairman

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on July 26, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 26, 2000.

On August 1, 2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "2NDSKIN.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.

On August 2, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 22, 2000 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@2ndskin.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 August 31, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a three member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. Carolyn M. Johnson, the Hon. Theodore R. Kupferman and the Hon. James A. Carmody (Chairman) as Panelists.

Having reviewed the communications records, 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.

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

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical to and confusingly similar to its marks 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.

B. Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this proceeding before the Panel. Accordingly, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint will be deemed true.

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 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.

The Complainant has rights in the registered mark 2ND SKIN®.

The Respondent’s domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in question. The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

The Respondent has not claimed to use the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services nor for any legitimate or fair noncommercial use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (iii).

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent acted and is acting in bad faith. The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

The Respondent has not developed the website identified by the domain name in question. Passive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

The Respondent registered the domain name in question for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or the Complainant’s competitors for valuable consideration in excess of its out-of-pocket costs. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

Based on the above, the panel concludes that the domain name in question was registered and used in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief of transfer of the domain name be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "2ndskin.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.