The Complainant is Christie's Great Estates, Inc., Santa Fe, NM, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is James P. Hawkins, Leucadia, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "CHRISTIESGREATESTATES.COM", registered with Network Solutions Inc. ("NSI").

The Panelist 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 the panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on August 7, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 7, 2000.

On August 9, 2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "CHRISTIESGREATESTATES.COM" is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On August 14, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 5, 2000 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@christiesgreatestates.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 September 14, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody 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 Uniform 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 name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate right to the domain name and use of that domain name would certainly lead to confusion in the marketplace. The Complainant asserts that the domain name was registered in bad faith as a way of either keeping the Complainant from its legitimate use or as an attempt to gain some financial advantage.

The Complainant alleges that anyone else attempting to trade on the name and/or trade style that the Complainant has built would be in clear violation of its names, trademarks, and trade styles.

B. Respondent

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

Because Respondent has failed to submit a response to the Complaint based on the Policy, the Panel accepts as true all reasonable allegations of fact set forth in the Complaint. Uniform Rule 14(b). See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint").

The Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Christie’s Inc., established in 1766. The Complainant is the real estate arm of the group and markets and advertises real estate for Christie’s clients and others. The Complainant has advertised its services in connection with its mark for many years.

The Respondent registered the domain name on October 8, 1999.

The Complainant’s counsel contacted the Respondent regarding transfer of the domain name. The Respondent emailed the Complainant’s counsel stating that he had no intention of profiting from the name or usurping the good name of the Complainant. He suggested that the two parties could come to an amicable meeting of the minds on the issue. Nonetheless, the Complainant has been unable to establish any meaningful conversation with the Complainant. The Complainant has attempted to contact the Respondent via phone messages and email multiple times.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("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 Complainant has common law rights in the mark "Christie’s Great Estates." See Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that trademark registration was not necessary and that the name "Julia Roberts" has sufficient secondary association with the Complainant that common law trademark rights exist). The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <tippex.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, TIPP-EX).

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate right to the domain name. The Respondent has not denied this assertion. See BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) ("By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name").

The Respondent is not commonly known by the mark comprising the domain name in question. Policy ¶ 4.c.(ii). The Respondent has not used the domain name for a legitimate noncommercial purpose or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Policy ¶ 4.c.(i), (iii).

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has not denied this assertion.

The Respondent indicated to the Complainant’s counsel that the two parties could certainly work out an amicable solution to the problem. However, he has not returned any correspondence after this initial communication. Offering to work out an "amicable meeting of the minds" and then refusing to respond to the Complainant’s attempts to solve the domain name dispute indicates that the Respondent knows or should know that the domain name in question infringes on the Complainant’s mark. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding that knowledge of the Complainant’s registered mark can be imputed to the Respondent given that the Complainant’s mark is long established and widely known); Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain name in question is "so obviously connected with the Complainant and its products that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith). Isolating oneself in order to avoid resolving a dispute, after indicating a willingness to transfer the domain name, is evidence of registration and use in bad faith.

Based on the totality of circumstances listed above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "CHRISTIESGREATESTATES.COM", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.