Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Noble Design Management , Fairfax, VA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Carroll Hauptle, Law Offices of Carroll Hauptle, PC. The Respondent is Designing Women Inc., Hickory, NC, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "designerforaday.com" registered with Network Solutions.

The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on October 30, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 30, 2000.

On 10/31/00, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "designerforaday.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On November 3, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 27, 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@designerforaday.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 December 4, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin, 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

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a response in this matter.

Complainant has been using the DESIGNER FOR A DAY mark since October of 1992. The mark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office December 16, 1997. Complainant is in the business of providing interior design services to individual as well as commercial customers. In addition, Complainant is currently considering applicants for nation-wide franchising or other distribution of its services.

Respondent is also in the business of interior design services. Respondent’s business is known as DESIGNING WOMEN. Respondent registered the domain name at issue September 13, 1998, and renewed that registration September of 2000.

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.

Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered trademark DESIGNER FOR A DAY.

The domain name at issue is identical to the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4.a.(i). Given the identical nature of the Complainant’s mark with the domain name, reasonable Internet users will assume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant. See Hormel Foods Corp. and Hormel Foods, LLC v. Spotted Cow Media, FA 95067 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that the domain name <kidskitchen.com> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark KIDSKITCHEN).

Consistent with the UDRP, Respondent must show that it has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name in question. Accordingly, in this case, there is no evidence to support the Respondent has any such rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name at issue. Policy 4.a.(ii). Consequently, the evidence submitted by Complainant supports that Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s mark, which forms the Respondent’s domain name. Policy ¶ 4.c.(ii). In addition, the Respondent registered the domain name in question after the Complainant’s mark was registered and established in the designing community. See Hewlett-Packard v. Full Systems, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000).

Therefore, since the Respondent has made no showing with respect to any of the above considerations, the Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question.

Because Respondent has not responded to the Complaint, it concedes that the domain name at issue was registered and used in bad faith, as alleged by Complainant. Accordingly, Respondent knew or should have known of the trademark registration and usage of the marks prior to its registration of the domain name at issue. See America Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 15, 2000) (finding that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s registered mark).

Moreover, by using the Complainant’s mark as Respondent’s domain name the panel finds the Respondent is attempting to attract interior design customers for its own commercial gain through a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See also Perot Systems Corporation v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainant’s marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant, therefore creating a likelihood of confusion).

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the panel concludes that the requested relief shall be granted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain name designerforaday.com be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.