Complainant is Sauder Woodworking Co., Archbold, OH ("Complainant") represented by Gregg W. Emch of Emch, Schaffer, Schab & Porcello, LPA. Respondent is John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Patrol, Nassau, BF ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <sauders.com>, registered with Joker.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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on July 12, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 13, 2001.

On July 23, 2001, Joker.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <sauders.com> is registered with Joker.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Joker.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Joker.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 July 23, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 13, 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@sauders.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 August 16, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

(1) The domain name registered by a 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 alleges that it has established all three of the above listed elements.

B. Respondent

U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,455,351 directed to the mark SAUDER for: "furniture, namely, tables, chairs, desks, drafting tables, typewriter stands, computer desks and printer stands, utility, microwave, TV and VCR carts, bookcases, room dividers, storage cabinets, file cabinets, chests, china cabinets, curio cabinets, wardrobe closets and stereo cabinets, in class 20."

Complainant also owns worldwide trademark registrations directed to the mark SAUDER for various furniture related goods including, but not limited to, Australian Trademark Registration No. A587103; Canadian Trademark Registration No. 405706; French Trademark Registration No. 1426955; German Trademark Registration No. 1118912; Italian Trademark Registration No. 502959; Japanese Trademark Registration No. 02401061; Mexican Trademark Registration No. 417726; and United Kingdom Trademark Registrations Nos. 1319378, 1364669 and 1364688.

Founded in 1934, Complainant is the leading manufacturer of ready-to-assemble furniture in the United States. The Complainant is one of the largest furniture manufacturers in North America. The Complainant ships over $525 million of furniture annually and does business in more than 70 countries worldwide.

Complainant is the owner of the domain name <sauder.com>. Complainant has been using this domain name since 1995.

Respondent, John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Patrol, is the owner of record of the subject domain name <sauders.com>. Respondent’s domain name was registered on April 11, 2000.

Respondent uses the domain name <sauders.com> to open numerous Internet web browser windows, each of which contains an advertisement for goods and services that can be purchased through the Internet. The Internet visitors are then "mousetrapped" in the site and unable to exit without a succession of advertisements. After clicking through such advertisements, the Complainant’s website <sauder.com> is revealed.

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 is the owner of numerous worldwide trademark registrations for its mark SAUDER. Complainant’s trademark rights in its SAUDER mark, which date to 1934, and Complainant’s rights in the domain name <sauder.com>, which date to 1995, long predate Respondent’s registration of the subject domain name <sauders.com> on April 11, 2000.

The subject domain name <sauders.com> is a misspelling of Complainant’s famous trademark SAUDER and the domain name <sauder.com>. The subject domain name <sauders.com> includes an additional "s" after the word/mark "sauder". Giving no consideration to the ".com" suffix, this is the only difference between the subject domain name and the Complainant’s mark SAUDER. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter "s" from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark); see also Victoria's Secret et al v. Internet Inv. Firm Trust, FA 94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding the domain name <victoriasecret.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET).

The Panel concludes that the <sauders.com> domain name is virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s SAUDER mark. Accordingly, Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Redirecting the domain name <sauders.com> to advertisements does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor is it a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See FAO Schwarz v. Zuccarini, FA 95828 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 1, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names <faoscwartz.com>, <foaschwartz.com>, <faoshwartz.com>, and <faoswartz.com> where Respondent was using these domain names to link to an advertising website); see also 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).

Further, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Respondent is not commonly known by the name/mark "sauders". Instead, the Respondent is commonly known by the name "John Zuccarini" and various other pseudonyms including the name "Cupcake Patrol." See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests to the domain name in question. Accordingly, Policy ¶4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Complainant alleges that because Respondent attracts Internet users to a series of advertisements using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s SAUDER mark and Complainant’s domain name <sauder.com>, Respondent’s actions constitute bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegations.

Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) states: "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location." In this case, Respondent is linking a confusingly similar domain name to several other on-line locations before finally directing users to Complainant’s website. It is likely that the Respondent gains a portion of the advertising revenue received from "mousetrapping" Internet users. Such conduct distinctly falls within the bad faith bounds of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See, e.g., Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and pornographic material); see also ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name to another website <iwin.com>, presumably, the Respondent received a portion of the advertising revenue from site by directing Internet traffic to the site, thus using a domain name to attract Internet users, for commercial gain).

Respondent’s registration and use of the subject domain name was and is in bad faith. Accordingly, Policy ¶4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

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, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name <sauders.com> be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated: August 27, 2001