Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Household International, Inc., Prospect Heights, IL, USA ("Complainant") represented by Larry L. Saret, of Laff, Whitesel & Saret, Ltd. Respondent is Household Lending, Kathmandu, NP ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "householdlending.com" registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on February 27, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 27, 2001.

On March 1, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "householdlending.com" is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 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 March 7, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 27, 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@householdlending.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 April 2, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

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

A. Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Household International, Inc., is an 82 billion dollar provider of financial services and is a leading provider of consumer loans and credit cards in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Complainant and its predecessor-in-interest, Household Finance Corporation, have been in the business of providing financial services since 1878, and have done business under the HOUSEHOLD service mark since 1935. Currently, Complainant is the owner of a large number of valid and subsisting U.S. service mark registrations covering many of the HOUSEHOLD marks, which have been extensively marketed throughout the United States as well as in foreign countries. As a result of Complainant’s substantial and extensive advertising and sales, it has acquired valuable goodwill in its HOUSEHOLD mark.

Respondent, Household Lending, has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name May of 2000; however, that registration was subsequently cancelled November of 2000 for failure to pay maintenance fees. On February 1, 2001, Respondent re-registered the disputed domain name. Complainant sent a Cease and Desist letter to Respondent after which Respondent agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant in exchange for $51,510.05, plus an additional 15-20 percent as extra reimbursement. Ultimately, Respondent requested $61,812.06 in exchange for the disputed domain name. Complainant promptly requested documentation to support Respondent’s purported expenditures associated with the domain name, to no avail. To date, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for any purpose.

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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(2) 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.

Under the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in the mark and that the domain name at issue is identical to or confusingly similar to that mark.

Here, Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark HOUSEHOLD. Respondent’s domain name, householdlending.com, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it is comprised of Complainant’s famous mark and a generic term that directly relates to Complainant’s business. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF 0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the Respondent’s domain name combines the Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the Complainant’s business); General Electric Co. v. Forddirect.com, Inc., D2000-0394 (WIPO June 22, 2000) (finding that adding the generic term "direct" on to the Complainant’s marks (GE CAPTIAL and GECAL) does not alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant, and thus the Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar).

As a result, the Panel finds that Complainant has established that the domain name at issue is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known mark. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant has established its rights to and legitimate interest in the HOUSEHOLD mark. Respondent has shown no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and Respondent’s only use of the domain name was to offer it for sale. This act alone does not establish any rights to or legitimate interest in the mark. See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the web sites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling the domain name).

Moreover, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name and that permits the Panel to conclude Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent failed to submit a response to the Complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question).

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant established its rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name in issue and Respondent did not. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

The evidence shows that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. This is evidence of bad faith. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp. D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4 (a) (iii) of the Policy); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).

Further, Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for an amount without demonstrating any relationship between the amount sought and the reasonable expenses of setting up the domain name. In fact, on its face, the amount was far greater than any reasonable expectation of expenses relative to a domain name start up. This demonstrates bad faith. See Wembley Nat’l Stadium Ltd. v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith based on the apparent willingness of Respondent to sell the domain name in issue from the outset and not at a price reflecting only the costs of registering and maintaining the name); see also World Wrestling Fed’n Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, D0099-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out of pocket costs).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and attempted to use the domain name in bad faith by attempting to force Complainant to purchase it for an amount that on its face was larger than a reasonable expense for setting up a domain name. Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Having established all three elements required under ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be and it is hereby granted. Therefore, it is Ordered that the domain name, householdlending.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.