Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Mellon Bank, N.A., Pittsburgh, PA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Joshua S. Bish, Reed Smith LLP. The Respondent is HS Trading Co., Ulsan, KOREA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is melonbank.com, registered with Tucows.

The undersigned 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.

Henry W. Blizzard, Jr. Circuit Judge, Retired , as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on November 7, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 10, 2000.

On November 8, 2000, Tucows confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name melonbank.com is registered with Tucows and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On November 14, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 4, 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@melonbank.com by e-mail.

On December 7,2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Henry W. Blizzard, Jr., as Panelist.

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

Respondent claims to be in the process of developing an Internet shopping mall, where farm produce will be sold and points to other registrations using the word "bank.com" such as "orangebank.com, "bridebank.com. and "pastelbank.com". Respondent argues that the domain name "melonbank.com" uses two common nouns and is not similar to Mellon Bank N. A. and that the two words are generic or descriptive words. Respondent claims to have registered the domain name in order to use it to sell farm produce, not to have registered it in order to sell it to Complainant, which it denies knowing existed at the time of the registration.

The domain name in question is confusingly similar to the Registered Marks of the Complainant. The Respondent has no legitimate interest or rights to the domain name in question. The registration of the domain name in question was done in bad faith in that it was done for an improper use, namely to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the registration to the Complainant or Complainant’s competitors for a valuable consideration above the actual expenses incurred by the Respondent. The domain name is being used in bad faith.

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 canceled 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 domain name in question and the Complainant’s marks are the same except for one letter "l" which is used by Complainant but not by Respondent. It is obvious the words "melon" and "mellon" are pronounced exactly the same way. The likelihood of confusion to consumers and users of the Internet is high and a legitimate concern. See, Geocities v Geociites.com D2000-0326(WIPO JUNE 19, 2000) . See also, Bank of America Corp. v InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000).

The Respondent fails to show any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question. Respondent has failed to offer goods or services on the web site. The Respondent’s web site does not relate to any active business using the name "melonbank" It does not appear that Respondent is commonly known by this name. There is no evidence that Respondent is making any legitimate non-commercial use or fair use of the domain name, such as a commentary on history or current events.

The only demonstrated reason for the registration of the domain name in question is for the Respondent to sell it to Complainant or Complainant’s competitors. The Respondent has offered to sell the domain name on its web site. Thus, the Registration was for an improper purpose and is being used in bad faith. See, General Electric Co. v Forddirect.com Inc., D2000-0394 (WIPO June 22, 2000).

Based upon the findings and discussion and pursuant to Rule 4 (a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy, it is decided as follows: The relief requested by Complainant is granted. The undersigned directs that the domain name "melonbank" register with Tucows to

HS Trading Co., Ulsan, KOREA be transferred to Complainant, Mellon Bank, N.A., Pittsburgh, Pa. USA.

Henry W. Blizzard , Jr., Judge Retired, Arbitrator