Complainant is Glasgow City Council, Glasgow, UK ("Complainant") represented by Elaine Galletly, of the Glasgow City Council. Respondent is Brian Keenan, Glasgow, UK ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <glasgowcitycouncil.com> registered with CSL GMBH.

On June 25, 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 May 21, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 29, 2001.

On May 22, 2001, CSL GMBH confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <glasgowcitycouncil.com> is registered with CSL GMBH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CSL GMBH has verified that Respondent is bound by the CSL GMBH 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 May 30, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 19, 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@glasgowcitycouncil.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.

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 <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s statutorily prescribed marks.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name.

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

B. Respondent

No response was received.

The Complainant, Glasgow City Council, is a local authority established by statute in the terms of the Local Government Etc (Scotland) Act 1994. Complainant provides the following services to the citizens of Glasgow, as authorized by statute: housing services, social work services, environment health services, education services, cultural & leisure services, and the provision of road and roads maintenance services. The name "Glasgow City Council," as prescribed by statute, is used in connection with all of these services.

Respondent registered the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name on February 8, 2000. When visiting the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name Internet users are informed that the domain name is for sale, and are provided with the contact information of Respondent as well as banner advertisements. No other use of the disputed domain name is apparent.

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.

The <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name is identical to the statutorily recognized name for the governing body of the city of Glasgow. The ICANN dispute resolution policy is "broad in scope" in that "the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice" to support a domain name complaint under the policy. See McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000); see also City of Hamina v. Paragon Int’l Projects Ltd., D2001-0001 (WIPO Mar. 12, 2001) (finding that "Port of Hamina has acquired distinctiveness and become established in the meaning of the Trademarks Act as a trademark/service mark relating to services originating from the City of Hamina/Port of Hamina").

Respondent has failed to come forward to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (stating that "In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint"); see also Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent any evidence of preparation to use the domain name for any legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate that he has rights or legitimate interests). Furthermore, there is a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name in dispute where Respondent fails to submit a response. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that "Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the Domain Names").

Respondent’s website, containing banner advertisements and an offer to sell the domain name, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Technologies, 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); see also J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit).

There is no evidence in the record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly known by the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Furthermore, there is no evidence that demonstrates Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), when Respondent offers to sell the disputed domain names. See 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).

The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s offer to sell the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Little Six, Inc v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding Respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant was evidence of bad faith); see also Grundfos A/S v. Lokale, D2000-1347 (WIPO Nov. 27, 2000) (failure to use the domain name in any context other than to offer it for sale to Complainant amounts to a use of the domain name in bad faith).

Furthermore, bad faith is evidenced by the obvious connection the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name has with the Complainant’s enterprise. Based on the totality of the circumstances, Respondent’s registration and offer to sell the domain name supports a finding of bad faith. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the "domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’"); see also Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (finding that the fact "that the Respondent chose to register a well known mark to which he has no connections or rights indicates that he was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue").

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

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

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <glasgowcitycouncil.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.