Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

B. Respondent

The Panel has received no submission from Respondent.

The Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") state the following with regard to default cases:

In this case, Respondent has not submitted a response, and therefore this Panelist may infer, for the purposes of this decision, that the averments in the complaint are true. See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc. D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that based on Respondentís failure to respond, the Panel draws two inferences: 1) that Respondent does not deny the facts asserted by Complainant, and 2) Respondent does not deny conclusions which the Complainant asserts can be drawn from the facts).

Based on the investigation, this panelist also takes note that Respondent registered the domain name after he filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

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.

The domain name stussy.net is identical to the Complainantís trademark STUSSY under Policy  4(a)(i). See Nike, Inc. v. Coleman, D2000-1120 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that the domain name <nike.net> is identical to the Complainantís famous NIKE mark); Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as "net" or "com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

Prior to Respondentís registration of the domain name, Complainant had registered the STUSSY trademark in the U.S. and the rest of the world, and registered the domain name stussy.net. Complainant inadvertently permitted the registration of the domain name to be cancelled by Network Solutions. See American Anti-Vivisection Society v. "Infa do Net" Web Services, FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that Complainantís prior registration of the same domain name is a factor in considering Respondentís rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy  4(c)(i), or in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy

4(c)(iii),. See The Body Shop International PLC v. CPIC NET and Syed Hussain, D2000-1214 (Nov. 26, 2000) (finding "that on the evidence provided by the Complainant and in the absence of any submissions from the Respondents, that the Complainant has established that (i) the Respondents are not using and have not used, or are not demonstrating and have not demonstrated, an intent to use the said domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondents are not and have not been commonly known by the said domain name; and (iii) the Respondents are not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the said domain name, without intending to mislead and divert consumers or to tarnish Complainantís <THE BODY SHOP> trademark and service mark"); Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainantís prior rights in the domain name precede Respondentís registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Complainantís trademark is well known in the U.S. and around the world. Respondentís constructive knowledge of the Complainantís trademark evidences his registration and use of domain name in bad faith. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, April 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration);

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that the Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the Complainantís EXXON mark given the world-wide prominence of the mark and thus the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).

Moreover, Respondentís offer to sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain name registration to Complainant two days after registration, as contended by the Complainant, demonstrates his bad faith in registration. Policy  4(b)(i). See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, D2000-0277 (WIPO May 30, 2000) (finding that the name was registered in bad faith because of the short time frame between the Respondentís registration and the unsolicited offer of sale to the Complainant); American Anti-Vivisection Society v. "Infa dot Net" Web Services, FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that "general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of 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, "stussy.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

James P. Buchele, Panelist

Dated: January 13, 2001