Complainant is AdminSolutions, Inc., Charlotte, NC ("Complainant") represented by Donna A. Tobin, of Cooper & Dunham LLP. Respondent is Daidalos Software Engineering, Rome, Italy ("Respondent").

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

On August 21, 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 July 19, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 23, 2001.

On July 24, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <adminsolutions.net> and <adminsolutions.org> are 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 July 26, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 15, 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@adminsolutions.net and postmaster@adminsolutions.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.

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

The <adminsolutions.net> and <adminsolutions.org> domain names are identical to Complainant’s ADMINSOLUTIONS United States registered service mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names.

The disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response was received.

Since 1997, Complainant has used its ADMINSOLUTIONS mark in connection with its employment and human resources services. Complainant registered its ADMINSOLUTIONS service mark on the Principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration No. 2,244,448 on May 11, 1999. Complainant has been in continuous use of its ADMINSOLUTIONS service mark since its registration.

Respondent registered the <adminsolutions.net> and <adminsolutions.org> domain names on January 17, 2000. Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain names.

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.

Through its United States registration, Complainant has established rights in its ADMINSOLUTIONS mark. See 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).

Furthermore, the <adminsolutions.net> and <adminsolutions.org> domain names are identical to Complainant’s ADMINSOLUTIONS service mark. See Snow Fun, Inc. v. O'Connor, FA 96578 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 8, 2001) (finding that the domain name <termquote.com> is identical to Complainant’s TERMQUOTE mark); see also 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). The addition of the ".net" and ".org" gTLD’s are of no consequence when determining the identical or confusing similarity of a disputed domain name. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com" after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).

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

Respondent has failed to submit a response to refute Complainant’s allegations that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names. It is well established that a Panel may accept all allegations of Complainant as true, where Respondent fails to submit a response. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint"); see also 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).

Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain names, since their registrations, supports a finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <adminsolutions.net> and <adminsolutions.org> domain names. See American Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way).

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

It is well established that continuous non-use (passive holding) of a domain name may constitute bad faith. As a result, Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith. See 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 requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

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

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

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