i.

By virtue of its federal trademark and/or service mark registration(s), Complainant is the owner of the Complainant's Mark(s). See, e.g., United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202 ("Panels have long recognized Complainant's registration of a mark with a trademark authority is sufficient to confer rights in the mark pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)").  As in other cases, it is also important to note that it is irrelevant for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i) whether Complainant registered the mark in the country where Respondent operates or resides. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that a mark be registered in the country in which a respondent operates, it being sufficient that a complainant can demonstrate rights in a mark in some jurisdiction).

ii.

When comparing the Disputed Domain Name(s) to the Complainant's Mark(s), the relevant comparison to be made is between only the second-level portion of the Disputed Domain Name(s) and the Complainant's Mark(s). See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, WIPO Case No.D2000-0429 (finding that the top-level domain, such as ".net" or ".com", does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., NAF Claim No. FA0304000153545 ("[t]he addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.")

iii.

The Disputed Domain Name(s) (is/are) confusingly similar to Complainant's Mark(s) because (it/they) differ(s) by only a single character from Complainant's Mark(s), or because it differs by only the juxtaposition of two characters when compared to Complainant's Mark(s). For clarification, the Disputed Domain Name(s) contain(s) either:

[i.] the addition of one extra character, or... [ii.] the removal of one character, or... [iii.] one character which is incorrect, or... [iv.] two juxtaposed characters

as compared to Complainant's Mark(s).

iv.

The Disputed Domain Name(s) (is/are), simply put, a classic example of "typosquatting". The practice of typosquatting is designed to take advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, which means the names must be confusingly similar by design. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441 (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark where the trademark is highly distinctive); Caterpillar Inc. v. Center for Ban on Drugs, NAF Claim No. FA0603000661437 ("the omission of a single letter from Complainant's mark does not adequately distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the

i.

ii. iii.

Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name(s). Upon information and belief, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name(s), it had no trademark or intellectual property rights in the Domain Name(s).  See Policy, ¶4(c)(ii). See WHOIS record for the Disputed Domain Name(s). Where, as here, "the WHOIS information suggests Respondent is known as" an entity other than the trademark associated with Complainant, and Complainant has not "licensed, authorized, or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating Complainant's... mark," a Panel should find that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. United Way of America v. Alex Zingaus, NAF Claim No. FA0707001036202. See also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); See also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that when a respondent was not known by a mark it did not have rights in a domain name incorporating that mark).

Respondent is not sponsored by or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's Mark in a domain name.  See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that a respondent had no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name where it was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission to use the mark).

iv.

A "Cease and Desist" letter was sent to the Respondent. The letter informed the Respondent that it was infringing on Complainant's IP rights and allowed the Respondent the opportunity to respond if they have any IP rights. The Respondent was provided with the information of the Complainant's trademark(s), hence showing proof that the Complainant has rights to the brand(s). To date, no reply has been received from Respondent. The Respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complaint to be deemed true. See also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint."). Also in WIPO case ACCOR v. Pham Manh Ha, Case No. D2007-1855, the panel found that the evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show by concrete evidence that it does have rights or legitimate interests in that name.

v.

Respondent has ignored Complainant's attempts to resolve the dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Complainant notes that if the owner of the Disputed Domain Name(s) fails to respond to this Complaint, it is presumed that the owner has no rights or

legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name(s). See Mattel, Inc. v. Rave Club Berlin, FA106115 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2002), citing Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents' failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names). Further, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) states that when "the complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name at issue."

vi.

Respondent is using (some or all of) the Disputed Domain Name(s) to redirect unsuspecting Internet users to a website featuring generic links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business. Presumably, Respondent receives pay-per- click fees from these linked websites. As such, Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name(s) to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as allowed under Policy; 4(c)(iii). See 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc. v. 24HourNames.com-Quality Domains For Sale, FA 187429 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sep. 26, 2003) (holding that Respondent's use of the 24hrsfitness.comgt, 24-hourfitness.com.gt and 24hoursfitness.com.gt, domain names to redirect Internet users to a website featuring advertisements and links to Complainant's competitors could not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the respondent's website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).

vii.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s), GUITARACENTER.COM, was July 16, 2006, which is significantly after Complainant's first use in commerce, June 1, 1965, as specified in their relevant registration with the USPTO.

viii.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s), GUITARACENTER.COM, was July 16, 2006, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of their relevant Marks with the USPTO on August 14, 1984.

ix.

The earliest date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name(s), GUITARACENTER.COM, was July 16, 2006, which is significantly after Complainant's registration of GUITARCENTER.COM on March 17, 1995.

i.

Respondent's typosquatting behavior is, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith. See Canadian Tire Corp. v. domain adm'r no.valid.email@worldnic.net 1111111111, D2003- 0232 (WIPO May 22, 2003) (finding the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because the respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location'.. . through Respondent's persistent practice of 'typosquatting'"); see also Nat'l Ass'n of Prof'l Baseball League, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2002-1011 (WIPO Jan. 21, 2003) ("Typosquatting ... is the intentional misspelling of words with [the] intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.").

ii.

iii.

Respondent's bad faith is further shown by the Respondent using the Disputed Domain Name(s) website in connection with generating revenue as a "click through" website, by using the Complainant's registered trademark(s) and providing links to the services and products offered by the Complainant to take advantage of Complainant's well known mark to achieve a wrongful competitive advantage and commercial gain. In WIPO Decision D2008-1470, AIDA Cruises German Branch of Societa di Crociere Mercurio S.r.l.,

v. Caribbean Online International Ltd. / Belgium Domains "the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name for the purposes of commercial gain by offering links to other companies' websites related to cruises and travels, in the form of a "clickthrough" website. In similar cases, many prior panel decisions have recognised [sic] that the registration of domain names to be used in a "click-through" website has to be considered as an evidence of bad faith (see, e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation., WIPO Case No. D2007-0440; Early Times Distillers Company v. IP Admin / DNAV ASSOCS, WIPO Case No. D2007-1812; HBOS Plc v. Whois Protection, WIPO Case No. D2007-1605)".

To further stress the above, Respondent’s setting up of a “click through” website for which it likely receives revenue for each misdirected Internet user obviously demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith.  The Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name(s) in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name(s) to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit.  See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006) (“Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website which features links to competing and non-competing commercial websites from which Respondent presumably receives referral fees.  Such use for Respondent’s own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).”); see also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant). See also Meadowbrook, L.L.C. d/b/a The Land of Nod v. Venkateshwara Distributor Private Limited, Claim Number: FA1112001419361 and Charlotte Russe Merchandising, Inc. v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft / Domain Admin, Claim Number: FA1204001439309, where the same behavior of bad faith is demonstrated and agreed by the panel, pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv).