The Complainant is North Coast Medical, Inc. , Morgan Hill, CA, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Allegro Medical, Scottsdale, AZ, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "northcoastmedical.com" registered with Network Solutions.

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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on August 30, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 5, 2000.

On September 5, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "northcoastmedical.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On September 5, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 25, 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@northcoastmedical.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 29, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One 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

Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

The evidence submitted by Complainant demonstrates that both Complainant and Respondent are competitors in medical products industry, offering medical products and supplies for sale. Complainant has used its corporate name, North Coast Medical, Inc. for over 15 years.

Respondent registered the domain name "northcoastmedical.com" in August 1999. On

or about July 2000, Complainant became aware that Internet users who entered the domain name "northcoastmedical.com" would be diverted to Respondent’s "allegromedical.com" web site.

After receiving a cease and desist letter from Complainant, Respondent changed the functionality of the "northcoastmedical.com" web site so that upon accessing the "northcoastmedical.com" web site for the first time, a screen appeared that displayed a page titled "North Coast Medical – Group Purchasing for the 21^st Century." If an Internet user accessed the "northcoastmedical.com" web site for a second time, they would again be transported to the "allegromedical.com" web site.

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.

Complainant did not present any evidence of a federal trademark registration. However, it did present evidence that it has used the corporate name "North Coast Medical Inc." for over 15 years in connection with manufacturing, promoting, advertising, marketing and selling medical products. Under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), the Complainant is only required to show that it indeed "has rights," in a trademark or service mark, not that those rights are evidenced by a federal trademark registration. Common law rights to a name may be sufficient. See The Journal Newspapers, Inc. v. HI5 Information Services, Inc. FA 95394 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 25, 2000) (finding that common law rights are sufficient to state a claim under the UDRP). Here, the Complainant’s evidence of continued use of the mark is sufficient to establish rights in the North Coast Medical mark.

The Panel can easily see that domain name in question, "northcoastmedical.com" is identical Complainant’s corporate name, North Coast Medical Inc. See Sporty's Farm L.L.C. vs. Sportsman's Market, Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2^nd Cir. 2000), cert. denied 120 S.Ct. 2719 (2000) ("For consumers to buy things or gather information on the Internet, they need an easy way to find particular companies or brand names. The most common method of locating an unknown domain name is simply to type in the company name or logo with the suffix .com").

Respondent has not provided any evidence to show that it has either used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the evidence shows that Respondent’s only use of the name has been to divert internet users from the "northcoastmedical.com" web site to its own "allegromedical.com" web site. Such a use cannot be "bona fide." Respondent also provided no indication that it has been commonly known by the domain name "northcoastmedical.com". Finally, there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, the only evidence present indicates just the opposite, that Respondent’s intent is specifically for commercial gain by diverting customers to its own web site.

Complainant and Respondent are competitors in the medical supply industry. The evidence presented makes it clear that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent has used the domain name to disrupt the business of a competitor. See ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that the Respondent, the Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business).

In addition, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users from the "northcoastmedical.com" web site to its own "allegromedical.com" web site. See ICANN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet, Inc., D2000-0127 WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attempted to attract customers to its website, <efitnesswholesale.com>, and created confusion by offering similar products for sale as the Complainant).

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, it is ordered that the domain name "northcoastmedical.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.