Complainant is Fininfo, Paris, France ("Complainant") represented by Eric Dupont, of Markplus International. Respondents are Matt Tapsell & Rory Jenkins, London, United Kingdom ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <fininfo.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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on May 29, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 4, 2001.

On May 30, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <fininfo.com> is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondents are the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondents are 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 June 4, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 25, 2001 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@fininfo.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 22, 2001.

Additional Submissions were received from both parties. Complainant’s first Additional Submission was found to be complete and to be considered by the Panel. Other Additional Submissions were determined to be incomplete and need not be considered by the Panel.

On July 2, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody as Panelist.

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges that it is the owner and user of the trademark "FININFO" which enjoys multiple European registrations applied for as early as March of 1988. Further, Complainant alleges that the domain name at issue, <fininfo.com>, registered by Respondents is the same or deceptively similar to its trademark. Additionally, Complainant alleges that Respondents have no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue and have registered and are using it in bad faith.

B. Respondents

Respondents acknowledge that Complainant has a British trademark registration and do not deny that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. However, Respondents claim that they made a survey of banks and financial institutions prior to domain name registration and found no known use of "FININFO." Respondents do not claim active use of the domain name at issue but say that they have plans for use. Finally, Respondents deny that they registered or use the domain name at issue in bad faith.

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant’s first Additional Submission is the only pleading considered other than the Complaint and Response, for procedural compliance reasons. The only point of note made by Complainant therein is that Respondents’ attempts to establish legitimate rights and interests in the domain name at issue were made after cease and desist demands on the part of the Complainant.

Complainant is a French "Société Anonyme" incorporated on March 15, 1982 having its activity in the field of distribution of financial information online (particularly to brokers and generalist websites) and online order processing. In 1999, FININFO claims to have become the market leader in online order processing.

Complainant is the owner in France, Great Britain and Europe of trademark registrations including the term "FININFO." The Trademark, "FININFO" has acquired an incontestable reputation by virtue of its intensive use, notably on the Internet, through the websites fininfo.fr, fininfo.org and fininfo.net. These registrations are as follows:

These Trademarks are intensively used in France, the United Kingdom, Europe, and throughout the world to designate Complainant’s services. Complainant’s trademark is also used worldwide through the FININFO websites, <www.fininfo.fr>, < www.fininfo.net>, <www.fininfo.org>.

Respondents registered the domain name at issue on October 8, 1998, after the first use and the registration of the Complainant’s trademark "FININFO." Respondents have never used the domain name at issue in commerce and have never been known by the domain name at issue, nor does Respondent so allege.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."

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 domain name is identical to Complainant’s "FININFO" 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)

Respondent’s domain name is so confusingly similar a reasonable Internet user would assume that the domain names are somehow affiliated with Complainant. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Accordingly, I find that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.

Respondents have never begun to use the domain name <fininfo.com> in commerce and have never been known by the public under this denomination. 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 mere registration of <fininfo.com> as a domain name is not sufficient to establish Trademark or Service Mark rights on the denomination <fininfo.com>. See Vestel Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret AS v. Kahveci, D2000-1244 (WIPO Nov. 11, 2000) (finding that "…merely registering the domain name is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy").

Respondents have made no use of the <fininfo.com> domain name, and therefore show that they have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. See State Fair of Texas v. State Fair Guides, FA 95066 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s failure to develop the site demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in the domain name).

Accordingly, I find that Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.

Respondents had at least statutory constructive notice of the "FININFO" mark prior to the registration of the domain name. See Household Int’l, Inc. v. Cyntom Enterprises, FA 95784 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 7, 2000) ("Just as the employment of a well-known business name for no particularly good reason undermines any claim to legitimate interest, so it may also support an inference of a bad-faith attempt to use the name to harass or exploit its legitimate owner… Respondent, if he ever was serious in the registration of this domain name, must have relied on the good chance he would attract [Complainant’s] customers").

Respondents are not using the <fininfo.com> domain name, and that passive holding constitutes bad faith. See Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had made no use of the domain name or website that connects with the domain name, and passive holding of a domain name permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).

Accordingly, I find that Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied by the Complainant.

For the reasons stated, this Panel finds for the Complainant and directs that the domain name at issue, <fininfo.com>, be transferred from the Respondents to the Complainant.