Complainant is Central Pacific Bank, Honolulu, HI ("Complainant") represented by Stanley L. Ching, of Devens, Nakano, Saito, Lee, Wong & Ching. Respondent is ansony, Seoul, KR ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <centralpacificbank.com>, registered with Netpia.com, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 20, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 22, 2001.

On August 22, 2001, Netpia.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <centralpacificbank.com> is registered with Netpia.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Netpia.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Netpia.com, Inc. 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 August 28, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 17, 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@centralpacificbank.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 October 2, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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 makes the following allegations:

B. Respondent did not file a response in this proceeding.

Complainant, Central Pacific Bank, is an Hawaii banking corporation, incorporated in its present form in the State of Hawaii on March 16, 1982. Complainant’s bank was formed in connection with its reorganization that included setting up a holding company, CPB, Inc., to act as parent company. The predecessor entity, Central Pacific Bank, was incorporated in the State of Hawaii (then the Territory of Hawaii) on January 15, 1954. Thus, Complainant has been in business and made continuous use of the name "Central Pacific Bank" for 47 years and Central Pacific Bank is the third largest full-service commercial bank in the State of Hawaii with 24 branch offices statewide. Its services include personal and business deposit instruments, commercial consumer and real estate loans, debit and credit card services, traveler’s checks, safe deposit boxes, international banking services, wire transfer services, ATM, Internet banking services and other electronic banking services and trust, investment and life insurance services.

On July 25, 2001, Complainant filed for registration of its long-recognized service mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

The sites that this disputed web address are pointing to, or have previously pointed to, do not have anything to do with the words "central", "pacific" or "bank" or the name "Central Pacific Bank." On May 31, 2001, Central Pacific Bank discovered that <centralpacificbank.com> was an active website. Prior to that date, although it was a registered site, it was inactive. On May 31, the site pointed to a Korean website with banner ads that in turn pointed to pornographic sites. As recently as July 1, 2001, <centralpacificbank.com> was pointing to http://www.99bb.com/en/body.html, another pornographic website. As of July 31, 2001, the site pointed to enlink.com. another Korean website.

On August 10, 2001, Complainant corresponded by e-mail with Respondent at the address listed in the registration information provided by Netpia.com. Complainant notified Respondent of Complainant’s rights to the mark and Complainant asked Respondent to turn over the domain name. Instead, on August 12, 2001, Respondent sent a one-word e-mail response: "20000." Complainant interpreted this response to be a demand for the sum of $20,000.00 in exchange for the domain name, <centralpacificbank.com>. When this response was received on August 13, 2001, Complainant again checked the website. As this time the website pointed to the Peace Bank of Korea’s website. The real domain names registered by Peace Bank of Korea are bankshopping.com and banktop.com. There does not appear to be anything at the bankshopping.com address but banktop.com (and pbk.co.kr) both point to the page to which Respondent now points: <centralpacificbank.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 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 Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

As described above, Complainant has proven its rights in the Central Pacific Bank mark. The main portion of the disputed domain name, <centralpacificbank.com> is identical to Complainant’s corporate name and mark, Central Pacific Bank. See World Wrestling Fed’n Entm’t, Inc. v. Rapuano, DTV 2001-0010 (WIPO May 23, 2001) ("The disputed domain names <worldwrestlingfederation.tv>, <undertaker.tv>, <therock.tv>, <stonecold.tv> and <austin316.tv> are essentially identical to Complainant’s marks [WORLD WRESTLING FEDERATION, UNDERTAKER, AUSTIN 3:16, THE ROCK, and STONE COLD]"). The Panel does not consider the ".com" term, spacing or capitalization when addressing the similarities between domain names and mark contained within them. See e.g., Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as "net" or "com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

Based on the above, the Panel determines that the elements set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) have been established.

Complainant has established its rights to and legitimate interests in the mark that is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. Respondent appears to have no relationship with Complainant’s bank. Further, Respondent has offered no proof that it is commonly known by Complainant’s mark and this record permits the inference that Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

The fact that the domain name has been used to point to four other websites, two of which were pornographic in nature, within a 3-month period, may be taken as evidence that Respondent does not intend to use the name for any legitimate business purpose or any bona fide offering of goods or services related to the name itself. The Panel may find that by using the domain name to point to other websites, none of which have any connection with the name <centralpacificbank>, Respondent is not making any legitimate use, commercial or noncommercial, of the domain name. The Panel may also find that Respondent is misleadingly diverting consumers who do business with Complainant to sites unrelated to Central Pacific Bank. Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). Nor is the Panel persuaded that Respondent’s attempt after this dispute surfaced to point the disputed name to another bank’s website establishes any legitimate rights in Respondent to the domain name containing Complainant’s mark.

Therefore, for the above listed reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has successfully shown that Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See National Football League Prop., Inc., et al. v. One Sex Entm't. 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); see also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on another's well known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is not a legitimate or fair use).

The Panel concludes that the elements set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) have been established.

Complainant asserts that Respondent acted in bad faith. Registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name to point to pornographic and other websites, in order to confuse and mislead legitimate Internet consumers, permits a finding of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See MatchNet plc. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that association of confusingly similar domain name with pornographic website can constitute bad faith); see also Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented websites is evidence of bad faith); see also Youtv, Inc. v. Alemdar, FA 94243 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent attracted users to his website for commercial gain and linked his website to pornographic websites); CCA Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that "this association with a pornographic web site can itself constitute a bad faith").

The Panel finds that Complainant has successfully shown that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that Respondent has offered no proof to the contrary. The Panel concludes 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 domain name <centralpacificbank.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.