Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Industry Forums International, Inc, Deerfield, IL, USA ("Complainant") represented by Anne C. Keays, of Schwartz & Freeman. The Respondent is Cambridge Capital Investment Ltd., Coral Gables, FL, USA ("Respondent") represented by Andrew Grosso.

The domain name at issue is "b3.org", registered with Network Solutions.

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 a panelist in this proceeding.

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

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on December 18, 2000; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 18, 2000.

On December 20, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "b3.org" 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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On December 20, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 9, 2001 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@b3.org by e-mail.

On January 15,2001, 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.

Complainant owns the registered mark "b3". It has used it in connection with its magazine which features business and technology issues. It claims a readership of 70,000. The mark is also featured at seminars and on its web site at www.bbb3.com. Complainant alleges that the domain name in question is identical in sight, sound and appearance to its mark and is therefore identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question and has not made use of the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent of commercial gain. Complainant states that Respondent registered and used the domain name in question in bad faith because it has not made use of the domain name, and thus has passively held it since the domain name was registered, and by passively holding the domain name is by implication demonstrating an intent to sell the domain name. Lastly, Complainant contends that any information submitted about the actions of DomainCollection.com should not be considered in this proceeding, since DomainCollection.com is not a party to these proceedings.

Respondent denies that the domain name in question and Complainant’s mark are identical, or even confusingly similar because the domain name at issue is comprised of a simple character string as opposed to Complainant’s mark which is a lower case "b", followed by a superscript numeral "3". Furthermore, Respondent says that Complainant’s claim to the characters "B3" is limited to printed material, such as the magazine Complainant publishes. Respondent alleges that it has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name in issue because it is using the domain name in connection with development and creation of domain names suitable for use by entities in various countries outside the United States. Respondent is in the business of helping companies select appropriate domain names. Respondent denies it has acted in bad faith within the meaning of the ICANN Policy. It further alleges that it has offered to sell the domain name at issue for a price consistent with ICANN Policy.

The domain name in question is confusingly similar to the registered mark of the Complainant, the two having the same sound and spelling. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in question because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Respondent made use of the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. Respondent registered the name and has used it bad faith. Respondent’s actions in passively holding the name created the impression that the name is being offered for sale. DomainCollection.com is not a party to these proceedings, but is in fact an agent of the Respondent and its actions are relevant and applicable.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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 Lastly, Complainant contends that any information submitted about the actions of DomainCollection.com should not be considered transferred:

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The only difference between the Complainant’s mark and the domain name in question is the addition of a top level domain identifier. This difference is of no significance in that the practical effect of confusing the public is present despite the difference. See Rollerblade, Inc v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

Respondent has not demonstrated that it has any right or legitimate interest in the domain name in question. The domain name is not being actively used. The Respondent is not commonly known by that name. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000).

Respondent has held the domain name in question passively, that is without use. Such conduct on the part of Respondent is an implied offer to sell the name. Respondent has offered the domain name for sale. Passive holding coupled with an offer to sell is an act of bad faith. See Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v. Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6,2000).

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 "b3.org" registered with Cambridge Capital Investment Ltd. be transferred to Complainant, Industry Forums International Inc.

Dated this 22 Day of January, 2001