Complainant is Theatre Development Fund, Inc., New York, NY ("Complainant") represented by Aidan Synnott, of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Respondent is Concert Tickets Plus, Inc., Stamford, CT ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <tkts.com> registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

On July 17, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. 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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on June 15, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 18, 2001.

On June 22, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <tkts.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that 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 June 22, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 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@tkts.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.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "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 Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name <tkts.com> is identical to Complainant's TKTS service mark.

Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the <tkts.com> domain name.

Respondent has registered the <tkts.com> domain name in bad faith and uses the <tkts.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No response was received.

Paragraph 15(a) of 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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

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.

Complainant has established that it has rights in the TKTS mark by virtue of its federal registration. The <tkts.com> domain name is identical to the TKTS mark; it incorporates Complainant's entire service mark and merely adds the common suffix ".com." This addition does not defeat the finding that the <tkts.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's TKTS mark. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entm't Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (finding the domain name <moviebuff.com> "essentially identical" to plaintiff's mark MovieBuff).

Respondent's use of the <tkts.com> domain name has caused confusion among consumers. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent has not come forward to assert any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the <tkts.com> domain name. There is a presumption that a Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to a disputed domain name when that Respondent fails to submit a response. See 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); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer competing services; this is not a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from the Complainant's site to a competing website).

Respondent does not demonstrate that it has been commonly known by the domain name. See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Respondent is using the <tkts.com> domain name to offer services that directly compete with Complainant; this is not a legitimate noncommercial nor fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s products to Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent uses, for commercial gain, the <tkts.com> domain name to offer services that compete with Complainant's use of the TKTS mark. This competing use disrupts the business of Complainant and constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant by offering personal e-mail accounts under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical to Complainant’s services under the OPENMAIL mark); see also Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area).

Additionally, such a competing use causes consumer confusion regarding the Complainant's famous mark and potential affiliation with Respondent's web site. This constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

Having established all three elements under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tkts.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.