The Complainant is Reed Elsevier Inc. & Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., Newton, MA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Tara M. Vold, of Howrey Simon Arnold & White. The Respondent is Don Malone Fast Break Information, Sacramento, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <lexisnexis.org>, registered with Register.com.

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.

Robert S. Brandt as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on June 19, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 20, 2001.

On June 20, 2001, Register.com Domain Register confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <lexisnexis.org> is registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com Domain Register has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com 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 21, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 11, 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@lexisnexis.org by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on July 10, 2001.

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

On July 18, 2001, a timely additional submission was received from the Complainant and considered by the Panel.

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

A. Complainant

The Complainant owns and operates well-known worldwide data research services under the names LEXIS, NEXIS, AND LEXIS-NEXIS. It holds eleven registered service marks or trademarks in those names. The Respondent purports to operate a similar business under the name of Fast Information Network. The purpose of registering <lexisnexis.org>, a name identical to a name the Complainant uses, is to divert business from the Complainant to the Respondent.

B. Respondent

The Respondent intends to operate an "adult" site, and bases the name "Lexis" upon a "female adult entertainer" and bases the name "Nexis" on a feature of the Star Trek films. Fast Information Network is no longer an active domain name.

The Panel finds for 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 name <lexisnexis.org> is identical to the trademarks and service marks in which the Complainant has rights.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <lexisnexis.org>. It operates no business under that name or any similar name. 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.) and Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent's commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name.) Moreover, the Respondent's claim that it is using the site to divert users to an "adult" content site does not constitute a legitimate interest in the domain name. See National Football League Prop., Inc., et. al. v. One Sex Ent. Co., D2000-0118 (WIPO Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names "chargergirls.com" and "chargergirls.net" where the Respondent linked these domain names to its pornographic website.)

The Respondent registered and is using the site either (1) for commercial gain to divert Internet users from the well-known LEXIS, NEXIS, and LEXIS-NEXIS sites to its site which offers identical, competing services or (2) for commercial gain to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s well-known sites to one offering "adult" content. In either case, it constitutes bad faith on the part of the Respondent. See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant) and National Football League Prop., Inc. et. al. v. One Sex Ent. Co.,

The domain name <lexisnexis.org> is transferred to the Complainant.