Complainant is Juniper Networks, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Julia Ann Matheson, of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP. Respondent is eNAMECORP.COM, Kwangju, Chonnam, Korea ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <junipernetworks.net>, registered with DotRegistrar.

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 17, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 16, 2001.

On July 17, 2001, DotRegistrar confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <junipernetworks.net> is registered with DotRegistrar and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DotRegistrar has verified that Respondent is bound by the DotRegistrar 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 19, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 8, 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@junipernetworks.net 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 13, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the <junipernetworks.net> domain name is identical to its JUNIPER NETWORKS trademark. Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the <junipernetworks.net> domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 it has rights to the JUNIPER NETWORKS mark by virtue of its multiple trademark registrations. E.g.,Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which a Respondent operates. It is sufficient that a Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).

Respondent's <junipernetworks.net> domain name is identical to Complainant's JUNIPER NETWORKS mark. The deletion of spaces between words and the addition of the gTLD are irrelevant when determining whether a party's domain name is identical to another's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). E.g., Amherst v. IFC Corp., FA 96768 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 3, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <customcommerce.com> is identical to Complainant’s CUSTOM COMMERCE trademark registration); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is likewise without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants").

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

Complainant asserts, and Respondent fails to refute, that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the <junipernetworks.net> domain name. Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's allegations allow the Panel to find that Complainant has met its burden with regard to Policy ¶ (a)(ii). See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also BIC Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG v. Tweed, D2000-0418 (WIPO June 20, 2000) ("By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to ¶ 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name").

Furthermore, Respondent is using the <junipernetworks.net> domain name to divert users to advertising websites that are not connected with Complainant. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). 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). Nor does such a use constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as provided by Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See 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).

Additionally, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <junipernetworks.net> domain name as set forth by Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) given the fact that Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's internationally famous mark. See Victoria’s Secret et al v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well established use of the mark).

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

Respondent’s registration of the <junipernetworks.net> domain name given the notoriety of Complainant's JUNIPER NETWORKS mark suggests opportunistic bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark given the world-wide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith).

Additionally, Respondent's use of the <junipernetworks.net> domain name meets the bad faith element set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Specifically, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's JUNIPER NETWORKS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent’s websites, the goods and services advertised at those websites, and the goods advertised in Respondent’s popup advertisements. See, e.g., Yahoo! Inc. v. Cupcake Patrol and John Zuccarini (WIPO Case No. D2000-0928) (finding bad faith in respondent’s use of complainant’s mark in the disputed domain names in order to sell advertising); see also 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).

Therefore, 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 <junipernetworks.net> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist