Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Sunglass Hut Corporation, Coral Gables, FL, USA ("Complainant") represented by Mark C, Maroon, Sunglass Hut Corporation. The Respondent is Nathan J Khoshnood Johuathan Investments, Inc., Belize City, Belize ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "watchstations.com" registered with BulkRegister.com.

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

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 1, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 4, 2000.

On December 4, 2000, BulkRegister.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "watchstations.com" is registered with BulkRegister.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On December 6, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 26, 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 Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@watchstations.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 28, 2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "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 Forumís 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 asserts Respondentís domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainantís famous mark, in which Complainant has incontestable rights. The only difference between Complainantís mark and the domain name in question is the addition of the letter "s", which makes the domain name at issue confusingly similar to Complainantís mark.

Complainant also contends Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question and that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith by registering the domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainantís mark.

B. Respondent

Respondent has failed to submit a response in this matter.

Complainant, Sunglass Hut Corporation, has owned the registered mark WATCH STATION since March of 1998. Complainant has used the mark in connection with various retail services featuring watches, watch accessories and related watch parts. Complainant has used the mark continuously since February of 1996. Currently, Complainant offers services under its "Watch Station" and "Watch Station International" marks worldwide.

Respondent, Johuathan Investments, Inc., is located in Belize and has not responded to Complainantís request to terminate its use of the domain name at issue.

The Rules state the following with regard to default cases:

Accordingly, Respondent has not submitted a response, and therefore this Panelist may assume, for the purposes of this Decision, that the Complainantís assertions are correct. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.")

Paragraph 15(a) of 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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

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 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.

For the purposes of this element of the ICANN Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark, and that the domain name at issue is identical to or confusingly similar to that mark. The evidence indicates that Complainant has demonstrated both elements.

Complainantís rights are evidenced by its registered trademark, WATCH STATION. The Respondentís domain name is confusingly similar to Complainantís mark. Policy  4.a.(i). The only difference between the Complainantís mark and the domain name at issue is the addition of the letter "s". See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that removing the letter "s" from the Complainantís UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus is confusingly similar to the Complainantís mark); see also Crédit Lyonnais v. Association Etre Ensemble, D2000-1426 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (finding that the addition of the letter "e" and a hyphen does not affect the power of the mark in determining confusing similarity).

Consequently, the Panel finds that Complainant met its burden of showing that the domain name at issue is identical and confusingly similar to Complainantís mark.

Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor is Respondent using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods, services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy  4.c.(i), (ii) and (iii).

Therefore, Respondentís failure to show evidence sufficient to refute Complainantís contentions, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in regard to the domain name in question. See Woolworths plc. v. David Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that the burden of proof lies with Respondent to demonstrate that he has rights or legitimate interests).

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.

Finally, the Panel finds Complainant has shown that Respondent has acted in bad faith. Respondentís conduct supports a finding that Respondent acted intentionally to attempt to attract Internet users to its own web site, primarily for the purpose of commercial gain via a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantís famous mark. Policy  4.b.(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainantís marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant Öthe Respondent is attracting Internet users to a web site, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantís mark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the Respondentís web site).

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief in the form of a transfer of the domain name shall be and is hereby granted.

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