Complainant is Express Services, Inc., Oklahoma City, OK, USA ("Complainant") represented by Randy L. Canis, of Greensfelder, Hemker, & Gale, P.C. Respondent is Harold Brown/Ted Waitt, Hermosa Beach , CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are <urn2expresspersonnel.com>, <urn2expresspersonnel.net>, and <urn2expresspersonnel.org> registered with Network Solutions.

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.

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on June 21, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 25, 2001.

On June 26, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <urn2expresspersonnel.com>, <urn2expresspersonnel.net>, and <urn2expresspersonnel.org> are registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Version 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 26, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 16, 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@urn2expresspersonnel.com, postmaster@urn2expresspersonnel.net, postmaster@urn2expresspersonnel.org 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 July 24, 2001 pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant asserts the following:

B. Respondent has made no contentions.

Complainant is the exclusive licensee of the EXPRESS family of registered service marks for a variety of personnel services including temporary and permanent employment services and staffing services, including:

On June 9, 2000, Respondents registered the domain name <urn2expresspersonnel.com>. Respondents operate under the name URN2.COM and registered a series of domain names with the prefix "URN2" and a suffix, which incorporated various companies’ trademarks. Through this Website, Respondents offered the various "URN2" domain names for sale.

By certified letter dated March 6, 2001, Complainant demanded that Respondents cease and desist their infringing use of the EXPRESS Marks. Respondents received the letter on March 12, 2001 and never responded to it.

On April 18, 2001, Express sent a second cease and desist letter to Respondents via certified mail return receipt requested. Although they received the second cease and desist letter on April 21, 2001, Respondents again failed to respond.

In fact, just four days after they received the second cease and desist letter, Respondents registered the domain names <urn2expresspersonnel.net> and <urn2expresspersonnel.org>. Moreover, as of May 21, 2001, more than one month after Respondents received the second cease and desist letter, they still owned the domain name <urn2expresspersonnel.com> and were posting content on their Website relating to the sale of various "URN2" domain names. Respondents were also offering the domain name <urn2expresspersonnel.com> for sale at a price of $1,000, at the Website GreatDomains.com.

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.

Respondent’s domain names fully incorporate Complainant’s name with the term "urn2." These domain names are not distinctive enough from Complainant’s EXPRESS family of marks to avoid the confusingly similar aspect of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Brown, FA 97303 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 25, 2001) (finding the domain names <urn2perotsystems.net> and <urn2perotsystems.org> were confusingly similar to Complainant’s PEROT SYSTEMS mark); see also Victoria's Secret et al v. Brown, FA 96561 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 19, 2001) (finding the domain names are <urn2victoriassecret.com> and <urn2victoriassecrets.com> were confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark).

Complainant has satisfied the burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Respondent has not undertaken any bona fide use in connection with the domain names, and Respondent’s attempt to sell a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPRESS family of registered marks is not a legitimate or fair use. See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit).

Respondent is not licensed or in any way authorized to use Complainant’s mark and is not commonly known by any of the domain names. 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).

Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in dispute. Complainant has satisfied the burden set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Respondent’s non-use of the domain names in any context, except to offer for sale for an amount in excess of out of pocket expenses, is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, D2000-1347 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (failure to use the domain name in any context other than to offer it for sale to Complainant amounts to a use of the domain name in bad faith); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the bad faith requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

Additionally, Respondent showed bad faith registration because the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s EXPRESS family of marks, and Respondent had constructive notice of Complainant’s marks. See Nintendo of Am. Inc v. Pokemon, D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding that Respondent, at the time of registration, had notice of Complainant’s famous POKÉMON and PIKACHU trademarks given their extreme popularity); see also Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names at issue in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain names <urn2expresspersonnel.com>, <urn2expresspersonnel.net>, and <urn2expresspersonnel.org> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.