P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA
www.arbitration-forum.com


FloridaFirst Bank and FloridaFirst Bancorp
COMPLAINANTS,

VS.

Mukadder Mufit Ozgunes
RESPONDENT.

DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE DECISION
Forum File No.: FA0004000094391

___________________________________________

The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on May 15, 2000 before the undersigned on the Complaint of the above named Complainants, against Mukadder Mufit Ozgunes, hereafter "Respondent". Complainants are represented by Kerry P. Charlet. There was no representation on behalf of Respondent. Upon the written submitted record, the following DECISION is made:  

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

Domain Name: FloridaFirstBank.com
Domain Name Registrar: Register.com, Inc.
Domain Name Registrant: Mukadder Mufit Ozgunes
Date of Domain Name Registration: January 7, 1999
Date Complaint Filed: April 3, 2000
Due Date for a Response: April 27, 2000
Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule 2(a)l and Rule 4(c): April 7, 2000 After reviewing the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to the Respondent on April 7, 2000 in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c). In compliance with Rule 4(d), The Forum immediately notified the above Registrar, Register.com, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative proceeding had commenced. Respondent did not submit a response to The Forum. On January 7, 1999, Respondent registered the domain name "FloridaFirst Bank.com" with Register.com, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. By registering its domain name with Register.com, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN's Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interest to serve as the Arbitrator in this proceeding. Having been duly selected, and being impartial, the undersigned makes the following findings and conclusions:

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. FloridaFirst Bank, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FloridaFirst Bancorp, is a federal savings bank. The subsidiary and parent are incorporated under the laws of the United States of America and registered to conduct business operations in the State of Florida.
  2. FloridaFirst Bank has a federal bank charter, and FloridaFirst Bancorp. has a federal holding company charter, both obtained from agencies of the Federal government for the purpose of providing banking and related services nationally. The bank and holding company had to apply for their charters, which were not granted until the Office of Thrift Supervision determined that the names were not confusingly similar to another banking institution.
  3. On October 27, 1998, the bank applied to the Untied States Patent and Trademark Office to obtain a trademark for the name "FloridaFirst Bank" and the bank expects the trademark to be granted this year.
  4. FloridaFirstBank.com is identical and confusingly similar to a name which the Complainants have established rights to under State and Federal laws and banking regulations, through numerous business transactions and public relations activities, and through filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States.
  5. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, whereas the Complainant FloridaFirst Bank is commonly known by the same name as the domain name and routinely conducts its business operations under that name.
  6. No evidence has been presented that Respondent has any right or legitimate interest to the domain name as provided in Rule 4(c).
  7. Complainants’ prayer for relief requests that the domain name be transferred to FloridaFirst Bancorp, Inc.
CONCLUSIONS

To obtain relief under paragraph 4(a)of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

    1. The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and
    2. The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and
    3. The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
Similarity Between Registrant’s Domain Name and Complainants’ Trade or Service Mark. The domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to or identical to the service mark owned by Complainants. Respondent’s Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name. Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, evidence of a registrant’s rights or legitimate interest in the domain name includes:
    1. Demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute;
    2. An indication that the registrant has been commonly known by the domain name even if it has acquired no trademark rights; or
    3. Legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent to divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.
Respondent has made no showing with respect to any of the above factors. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. Respondent’s Bad Faith Registration and Use of the Domain Name. Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use includes:
    1. Circumstances indicating the domain names were registered for the purpose of resale to the trade or service mark owner or competitor for profit;
    2. A pattern of conduct showing an attempt to prevent others from obtaining a domain names corresponding to their trademarks;
    3. Registration of the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
    4. Using the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark owner’s mark.
The Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith as evidenced by circumstances indicating that Respondent registered and acquired the domain name for the purpose of resale to the mark owner or a competitor for valuable consideration in excess of costs. Under ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy Complainants have proven that the domain name should be transferred to Complainants.  

DECISION

Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided as follows: THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME "FloridaFirstBank.com" REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT BE TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT, FLORIDAFIRST BANCORP.

Dated: May 15, 2000 Judge Karl V. Fink, Arbitrator