Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Doskocil Manufacturing Company, Arlington, TX, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is #1 Domains' Sales Group, INc., East Dundee, IL, USA ("Respondent").

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

The Panelist certifies 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. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on August 7, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 7, 2000.

On August 8, 2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "GUNGUARD.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 10, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 30, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by e-mail. It was also e-mailed to postmaster@gunguard.com.

The proceeding was stayed for 30 days, pending settlement, while the parties attempted to reach an agreement. Upon completion of the 30 days, the stay was lifted, and The Forum continued the proceeding.

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 October 2, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody as Panelist.

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

B. Respondent

The Respondent has submitted no response.

Given the Respondent’s failure to submit a response in this UDRP matter, the Panel will regard all reasonable assertions of fact set forth in the Complaint as 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 mark "GUN GUARD" as evidenced by its federally registered trademark. The Respondent’s use of the said domain name is confusing and infringes on the Complainant’s federally registered mark. Further, the said domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark with the exception of the elimination of the space between the words "gun" and "guard" and the addition of the ".com" suffix. These differences do not have a bearing in determining the first item of the ICANN Policy—identical or confusingly similar. Policy ¶ 4.a.(i). See ViewSonic Corp. v. Informer Assoc. Inc., D2000-0852 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain names "viewsonic.net" and "viewsonic.org" are identical to the Complainant’s mark). The Panel determines that the Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the circumstances set forth in Policy ¶ 4.c. The Respondent has not denied this assertion.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question for the following reasons:

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. Policy ¶ 4.b.(ii). This is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. See BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated ¶ 4(b)(ii), as revealed by the number of other domain name registrations incorporating others’ trademarks and the fact that the domain names in question do not link to any on-line presence or website). The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the domain name 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 be granted.

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