Complainant is Cine Power International Ltd., Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom ("Complainant"). Respondent is Virtual Computer Ltd., Essex, United Kingdom ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <cinepower.com>, registered with Network Solutions.

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.

Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 1, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 3, 2001.

On August 1, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <cinepower.com> is registered with Network Solutions and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 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 August 6, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 27, 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@cinepower.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 September 4, 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

The <cinepower.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CINE POWER trademark.

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

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

B. Respondent

No Response was received.

Since 1972, Complainant has used its CINE POWER trademark in connection with the sale of portable power solutions and other associated products for the professional and film and televisual broadcast industry. Complainant incorporated its business on June 22, 1972 with the Republic of South Africa.

In April 1997, Complainant contracted with Respondent for web hosting services. Respondent, in turn, registered the <cinepower.com> domain name on behalf of Complainant and issued a username and password to Complainant, granting access to Respondent’s web hosting server. Complainant was unaware that Respondent had registered the disputed domain name under Respondent’s name, and not Complainant’s.

Respondent registered the <cinepower.com> domain name on April 29, 1997. On July 18, 2001, Complainant learned that Respondent ceased operation and sold off all assets to IP Prolink Ltd. Complainant contacted IP Prolink Ltd. to request transfer of the disputed domain name, but was informed that IP Prolink Ltd. did not retain control of the disputed domain name.

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, through its extensive use in commerce and incorporation under the CINE POWER name, has established rights in the CINE POWER trademark. See Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (finding that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does not require "that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist").

Furthermore, the <cinepower.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CINE POWER trademark, as it wholy incorporates the 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 Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

It is well established that a Panel has the discretion to find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where Respondent fails to submit a response. 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 Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name because the Respondent never submitted a response nor provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).

Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a response the Panel is permitted to make all inferences in favor of Complainant. 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 Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint).

There is no evidence, and Respondent does not refute, that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name. See Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET & Hussain, D2000-1214 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2000) (finding "that on the evidence provided by the Complainant and in the absence of any submissions from the Respondents, that the Complainant has established that (i) the Respondents are not using and have not used, or are not demonstrating and have not demonstrated, an intent to use the said domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondents are not and have not been commonly known by the said domain name; and (iii) the Respondents are not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the said domain name, without intending to mislead and divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s <THE BODY SHOP> trademark and service mark").

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

Because Respondent was obviously aware of the existence of Complainant’s mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names, due to its relationship with Complainant, such evidence supports a finding of bad faith based on the totality of the circumstances. See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Risser, FA 93761 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2000) (finding that in determining if a domain name has been registered in bad faith, the Panel must look at the "totality of circumstances"); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).

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 <cinepower.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.