Complainant is General Media Communications, Inc., New York, NY ("Complainant") represented by Chris Bolton, of General Media Communications, Inc. Respondent is Webtivities, Winter Park, FL ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <penthouseasia.com> registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc.

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on September 6, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 10, 2001.

On September 11, 2001, BulkRegister.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <penthouseasia.com> is registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. BulkRegister.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the BulkRegister.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 September 11, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 21, 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@penthouseasia.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 9, 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 Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant

The <penthouseasia.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE marks.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <penthouseasia.com> domain name.

Respondent registered and used the <penthouseasia.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No response was received.

Since 1969 Complainant has published well-known magazines, distributed home movies, and marketed adult entertainment services using the PENTHOUSE trademark throughout the United States and the world. In addition, Complainant has sold and continues to sell many millions of dollars worth of goods and services under the PENTHOUSE marks.

Finally, Complainant has a popular website <penthouse.com> that is used extensively to promote and advertise Complainant’s products and services.

On August 6, 1999 Respondent commenced use of Complainant’s mark by using <penthouseasia.com> as a way to link Internet users to Respondent’s <SEXtionary.com> website as well as other adult websites. Complainant sent Respondent a notice of trademark infringement the very same day.

Respondent’s <penthouseasia.com> website was deactivated. On August 7, 1999 Complainant received a letter from Respondent demanding payment for the <penthouseasia.com> domain name. On August 31, 1999 Complainant agreed to pay $300 to Respondent to transfer the domain name to Complainant.

Respondent never replied to the transfer forms or to subsequent phone messages. The <penthouseasia.com> site has remained inactive since. When Complainant finally reached Respondent to discuss the transfer, Respondent offered to sell the domain name at issue for as much as $200,000. Respondent declined.

On August 13, 2001 Complainant learned that Respondent reactivated the domain name by using a site that offers weblinks to Asian websites.

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 <penthouseasia.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE trademark. The addition of "ASIA" to Complainant’s trademark does not distinguish it from the PENTHOUSE mark. See Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Analytical Services, FA 95106 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 24, 2000); see also Nike, Inc. v. Jung, D2000-1471 (WIPO Dec. 30, 2000) (finding the domain names <nikeeurope.com> and <nike-europe.com> confusingly similar to complainant’s trademark); see also Net2phone Inc, v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s registration of the domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly similar to complainant’s mark…"the combination of a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found confusingly similar.").

Further, Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar because it incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety. See Chanel, Inc. v. Estco Technology Group, D2000-0413 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding <chanelfashion.com> and <chanelstore.com> are confusingly similar to CHANEL mark);

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

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <penthouseasia.com> because Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead Respondent used the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as a way to divert Internet users to its competing adult website for commercial benefit. See The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was an illegitimate use and not a bona fide offering of goods); see also North Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its competing website); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from the Complainant's site to a competing website); see also Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enter., FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) (inferring that Respondent registered the domain name <householdbank.com>, which incorporates Complainants HOUSEHOLD BANK mark, with hopes of attracting Complainant’s customers and thus finding no rights or legitimate interests).

Next, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <penthouseasia.com> because Respondent’s services are not commonly known by that mark. Rather, Respondent used the confusingly similar domain name as a link to his website known as <SEXtionary.com>. 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); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use).

Finally, Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in <penthouseasia.com> because Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial fair use of the domain name. Respondent’s past use of the domain name to divert users to his own adult website and his current use to link the unrelated websites of others is not a legitimate non-commercial fair use. See Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s products to Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark); see also AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of the domain name to direct users to other, unconnected websites does not constitute a legitimate interest in the domain name).

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

Respondent’s use of the <penthouseasia.com> domain name to intentionally attract, for the purpose of commercial gain, Internet users who are confused about the services and products at the website is evidence of bad faith. See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant); see also Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks).

Respondent’s registration of the domain name primarily to disrupt the business of

Complainant is evidence of bad faith. As a competitor of Complainant in the adult entertainment industry, Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark is evidence of an attempt to disrupt Complainant’s business. See General Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark as a pornographic web site); see also EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that the Respondent, the Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business); see also Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the Complainant, a competitor of the Respondent).

Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name to the complainant for the excessive amount

of $200,000 is evidence of bad faith. See World Wrestling Fed’n Entmt., Inc. v. Bosman, D99-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out of pocket costs); see also Hitachi, Ltd. v. Fortune Int’l Dev. Ent, D2000-0412 (WIPO July 2, 2000) (finding Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $100,000 constitutes bad faith).

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 domain name <penthouseasia.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.