Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford, CT, USA ("Complainant") represented by Donna A. Tobin, of Cooper & Dunham LLP. The Respondent is Luis Manuel Ardura Gancedo, Gijon, Asturias, ES ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are the-hartford.com, the-hartford.net, the-hartford.org registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

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.

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on November 27, 2000; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 30, 2000.

On December 8, 2000, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names the-hartford.com, the-hartford.net, the-hartford.org are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 4.0 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 14, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 3, 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@the-hartford.com, postmaster@the-hartford.net, postmaster@the-hartford.org 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 January 11, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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 the Respondent.

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

Complainant alleges the following with respect to the domain names at issue:

Respondent did not submit a response in this matter.

Complainant has rights in THE HARTFORD, evidenced by various certificates of federal registration, including registrations for:

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 names at issue, which are themselves identical except for their use of three different top level domains, are identical to Complainant’s THE HARTFORD marks, in which it has rights. See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that the domain name, clericalmedical.com, is identical to various registered trademarks belonging to Clerical Medical).

Therefore, Complainant has satisfied ICANN Policy 4(a)(i).

ICANN Policy 4(a)(ii) requires that Respondent demonstrate rights or a legitimate interest in the domain names at issue. ICANN Policy 4(c) provides Respondent with examples of various circumstances that will evidence rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has failed to demonstrate any such rights, and none are present based on the evidence presented.

Respondent has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use any of the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ICANN Policy 4(c)(i). While offering domain names for sale may be a bona fide offering of goods or services, See Fifty Plus Media Corp. v. Digital Income, Inc., FA 94924 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2000) (finding that Complainant failed to prove that Respondent had no rights in the domain name and had registered and used the domain name in bad faith where the Respondent is an Internet business which deals in selling or leasing descriptive/generic domain names), such an offering can never be bona fide when the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to another’s valid trademark. See America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that "[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and for the same business).

Respondent provided no evidence that it has been commonly known by the domain names at issue. ICANN Policy 4(c)(ii).

Of the three domain names at issue, Respondent is making a commercial use of one, by offering it for sale, and is making no use of the other two. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate rights or a legitimate interest under ICANN Policy 4(c)(iii).

Respondent has failed to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue pursuant to ICANN Policy 4(a)(ii).

Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain names at issue over thirteen months ago. Since that time, Respondent’s only apparent use has been to link the-hartford.com to a web page offering the domain name for sale. No use or demonstrated preparations to use the other domain names is apparent. Without any assertions by Respondent of a good faith intent to use the domain names, and in light of Complainant’s allegations that Respondent was once an agent of Complainant, the panel reasonably concludes that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Martineau, FA 95359 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name, in addition to the passive holding of the domain name, reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith).

In situations such as this, where Respondent fails to submit a response, the panel draws two inferences: First, Respondent does not deny the facts asserted by Complainant. Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc. D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000). Second, Respondent does not deny conclusions which Complainant asserts can be drawn from the undisputed facts. Id.

In this case Complainant alleges, and the panel accepts, that Respondent registered the domain names with knowledge of Complainant’s rights, in part because of Respondents’ agency relationship with Complainant. Registration under such circumstances is in bad faith. See Labrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Garrett, FA 94293 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 27, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain names six months after Respondent’s distributor agreement with Complainant was terminated).

Respondent registration and use is in bad faith under ICANN Policy 4(a)(iii).

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be granted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain names the-hartford.com, the-hartford.net, and the-hartford.org be transferred from Respondent to the Complainant.