Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

Complainant is Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc., San Rafael, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Laura C. Gustafson, of Pillsbury Winthrop LLP. Respondent is Earl Brown Inocom, San Diego, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are "eficoscore.com", "ficobuilder.com", "ficofix.com", "ficogod.com", "ficohelp.com", "ficoinfo.com", "ficoman.com", "ficorepair.com", "mortgagefico.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 Panelist in this proceeding. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 29, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 2, 2001.

On April 3, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names "eficoscore.com", "ficobuilder.com", "ficofix.com", "ficogod.com", "ficohelp.com", "ficoinfo.com", "ficoman.com", "ficorepair.com", "mortgagefico.com" are 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 April 6, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 26, 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@eficoscore.com, postmaster@ficobuilder.com, postmaster@ficofix.com, postmaster@ficogod.com, postmaster@ficohelp.com, postmaster@ficoinfo.com, postmaster@ficoman.com, postmaster@ficorepair.com, postmaster@mortgagefico.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 May 4, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

B. Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Fair, Isaac and Company, Inc., owns the registered FICO mark, which it has used in providing financial and credit scoring products and services. Complainant’s mark is a term derived as a sort of acronym from its company name. Under its FICO mark, Complainant has developed sophisticated proprietary systems for analyzing information to forecast future risk performance of credit accounts and insurance policies. Complainant is also a leading provider of risk score analysis services and other decision-making solutions and consultation services. Complainant’ s company was founded over 40 years ago and is world-renowned with clients in more than 60 countries and on six continents. Complainant’s stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, has made the Forbes list of the top 200 U.S. small companies seven times in the last eight years and was named by Information Week as one of the top 50 application service providers in 2000.

Respondent, Inocom, registered the disputed domain names in February of 2000. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s famous mark. Currently, Respondent offers credit and credit scoring products and related services through the disputed domain names directly or via hyperlinks to other financial sites. On September 14, 2000, Complainant sent Respondent a Cease and Desist letter that informed Respondent of Complainant’s rights in the FICO mark and demanded immediate transfer of the disputed domain names to no avail. However, on September 26, 2000, Respondent phoned Complainant and offered to sell two domain names to Complainant, one of which is a domain name in this dispute, ficobuilder.com. The other, ficobuilders.com, has already been transferred to "Cred-BiIity." To date, Complainant has made numerous transfer requests in relation to the disputed domain names, to no avail.

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 the 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.

Complainant’s rights are evidenced by its registered FICO mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s domain names, eficoscore.com, ficobuilder.com, ficofix.com, ficogod.com, ficohelp.com, ficoinfo.com, ficoman.com, ficorepair.com and mortgagefico.com, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names all fully incorporate Complainant’s famous mark. See Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Zuccarini, D2000-0777 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2000) (finding that the registration and use of multiple domain names incorporating the distinctive and famous YAHOO!, Yahooligans!, and GeoCities marks, together with generic words such as ‘chat’ and ‘financial’ to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks and likely to mislead Internet users into believing that products and services offered by Respondents are being sponsored or endorsed by YAHOO! or GeoCities, given the similarity of the names and products and services offered); see also Quixtar Inv., Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar).

Also, the disputed domain names are so confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark that a reasonable Internet user would assume that the domain names are somehow associated with Complainant’s well-established mark. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainant’s marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with Complainant); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered domain names that are identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known mark. Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant has established rights in the FICO mark and has supported those rights with evidence in the record. Respondent has not shown rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names that contain Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names or by Complainant’s mark and Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s famous mark. See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark contained in the domain name where Complainant has not permitted Respondent to use the NOKIA mark and no other facts or elements can justify prior rights or a legitimate connection to the names "Nokia" and/or "wwwNokia"); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark or never applied for a license or permission from Complainant to use the trademarked name).

Further, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, which entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names at issue that contain Complainant’s mark. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by the Complainant that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights to the mark contained within the domain names registered by Respondent and that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the marks and domain names. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

The proof submitted permits an inference that Respondent knew or must have known about Complainant’s famous mark prior to registering the disputed domain names. This is evidence of bad faith. See Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (finding registration in bad faith based where there is no reasonable possibility, and no evidence from which to infer, that the domain name was selected at random since it entirely incorporated Complainant’s name); see also Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (finding that the fact "that the Respondent chose to register a well known mark to which he has no connections or rights indicates that he was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue").

In addition, Respondent registered the disputed domain names to intentionally attract Internet users to Respondent’s web sites, strictly for commercial gain, and with a substantial likelihood of creating confusion with Complainant’s famous mark. This is evidence of bad faith. See Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a web site that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the Complainant’s well known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Respondent competes in the same market area in which Complainant uses its well-known mark.

Moreover, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct by registering several infringing domain names. This is evidence of bad faith. See America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding a pattern of conduct where Respondent has registered many domain names unrelated to the Respondent’s business which infringe on famous marks and web sites); see also Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the "totality of circumstances").

Finally, Respondent has offered to sell infringing domain names to Complainant. This is evidence of bad faith. See American Anti-Vivisection Soc’y 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"); see also Technology Properties, Inc v. Hussain, FA 95411 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent verbally offered the domain names for sale for $2,000).

For all of the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names in issue that contain Complainant’s mark in bad faith. 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. It is Ordered that the domain names, eficoscore.com, ficobuilder.com, ficofix.com, ficogod.com, ficohelp.com, ficoinfo.com, ficoman.com, ficorepair.com, and mortgagefico.com, be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.