The Complainant is Potter Brothers Ski Shops, Inc., Kingston, NY, USA ("Complainant") represented by Kyle C. Potter. The Respondent is Craig McCoy, Newburgh, NY, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "potterbrothers.com", registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. Roger P. Kerans (ret’d) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on May 16, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 18, 2001.

On May 23, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "potterbrothers.com" is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the 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 May 23, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 12, 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@potterbrothers.com by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on June 12, 2001.

On June 18, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Roger P. Kerans (ret’d) as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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 generic name "potterbrothers" without further qualification in terms of locale or kind of business obviously will be thought by some customers of Potter Brothers Ski Ship to be the domain name of that shop.

The names are confusingly similar.

At least in the New York State and Massachusetts, the Complainant has unchallenged goodwill in the name Potter Brothers Ski Shop, and thus can claim a property interest in the name. See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing, and secondary meaning is established).

The Respondent does not claim any proprietary interest other than as a purchaser of the name. The Respondent readily acknowledges he acquired the name for resale only, and assumes there is a market for the name on the part of at least all the businesses named Potter Brothers.

The position taken by the Respondent raises the question whether to acquire a domain name for the sole purpose to speculate on the prospects of resale is a valid interest under the ICANN rules.

The Respondent’s interest does not fall within any of the specific categories found in Paragraph 4(a)(ii). He had no prior business in that name, he has no trade name or trade marks of that name, and he does not propose any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name by him. Of course, these categories are not exhaustive. Some speculative interests have been recognized. See Fifty Plus Media Corp. v. Digital Income, Inc., FA 94924 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2000) (finding that Complainant failed to prove that Respondent had no rights in the domain name and had registered and used the domain name in bad faith where the Respondent is an Internet business which deals in selling or leasing descriptive/generic domain names).

The Respondent here has not chosen a generic or descriptive name. A generic name is one that is common or descriptive and does not, without more, refer to specific persons, or businesses. In my view, "potterbrothers" is a name that refers to specific people or businesses.

It is correct, as the Respondent argued, that there can be and probably is more than one business called Potter Brothers. In my view, however, the name refers to them only. If there is more than one business called "Potter Brothers", each has some rights in the term "potterbrothers.com." Indeed, each probably has the right to demand of others that, to avoid confusion, the domain names of each must contain a qualifier relating to locale or kind of business or both. But those rights are limited to people or businesses named Potter. The fact that there is more than one Potter does not make the name generic, nor permit a non-Potter to claim an interest.

I conclude that the Respondent has no valid interest in the name "potterbrothers.com."

The Complainant fails to advance evidence to support its claim that the Respondent is about it start a web-site that would misleadingly re-direct customers of the Complainant to a business offering competing goods and services. It is not good enough to say "It has been brought to the Complainant’s attention." If I am to rely on it, I must know the source of the information or receive other indicia of reliability.

On the other hand, the Respondent offers no supportive evidence of his claim that he is about to create a valid web business employing this name.

The Respondent claims no intent to trespass on the lawful interests of the Complainant. But I notice that he resides a few miles down the Hudson valley from the principal place of business of the Complainant. It is hard to accept that this choice of name was pure coincidence.

The Respondent readily acknowledges he acquired the name for resale only, and he assumes there is a market for the name on the part of at least all the businesses named Potter Brothers. His real reason, therefore, in acquiring the name was to re-sell it to the highest bidder amongst those who have businesses named Potter Brothers and who, simply because of his registration, would be forced to deal with him. The Respondent obviously is of the view that to hold existing businesses hostage in this way is itself a legitimate business. On the contrary, this is one abuse of registration the ICANN regulation was adopted to prevent. See Pep Boys Manny, Moe, and Jack v. E-Commerce Today, Ltd., AF-0145 (eResolution May 3, 2000) (finding that where the Respondent registered many domain names, held them hostage, and prevented the owners from using them constituted bad faith).

For the reasons mentioned, it would be inappropriate to transfer the domain name. I am not sure anybody has the exclusive right to the unqualified name "potterbrothers.com." I hereby cancel the name.