Complainant is Love Your Neighbor Corp, Detroit, MI, USA ("Complainant") represented. Respondent is EMC a/k/a Dennis Cail, Dallas, TX, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <loveyourneighbor.net> 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 June 1, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 4, 2001.

On June 4, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <loveyourneighbor.net> 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 4.0 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 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@loveyourneighbor.net 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 July 2, 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.

The <loveyourneighbor.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s federally registered marks.

The Respondent has no rights in respect to the disputed domain name.

The <loveyourneighbor.net> domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No response was received.

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 Panel notes that the Complainant has filed several other UDRP proceedings, by making similar arguments in other domain name disputes and has not prevailed. Though the decisions in those proceedings alone do not influence the Panel in this proceeding, they strongly support the proposition that when a Complainant relies heavily on a registered trademark, the Complainant must still allege facts which establish that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name, and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a). See Love Your Neighbor v. Love Thy Neighbor Org., FA 95772 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 15, 2000) (finding that Complainant failed to allege any facts which support the proposition that Respondent registered and used the <lovethyneighbor.org> domain name in bad faith); see also Love Your Neighbor Corp. v. LOVEARTH.NET, FA 97197 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2001) (holding that "Complainant has not presented specific evidence to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name or that the domain name was registered in bad faith").

The inclusion of the ".net" to the end of the disputed domain name is inconsequential for purposes of determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar. See Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) (finding that "the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is likewise without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants")

The <loveyourneighbor.net> domain name contains Complainant’s LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR registered trademark and service mark in its entirety. The disputed domain name is therefore identical to Complainant’s registered mark. Technology Properties, Inc. v. Burris, FA 94424 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding that the domain name <radioshack.net> is identical to the Complainant’s mark, RADIO SHACK); see also Victoria's Secret et al v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that the <bodybyvictoria.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BODY BY VICTORIA mark).

The Panel notes that the wording as set forth in the Complaint is difficult to comprehend, with respect to its treatment of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complaint generally alleges that "[n]o rights exist for [Respondent] to have possession of my name." This is not a sufficient allegation of facts to establish that the Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate interests in the subject domain name.

To further its point, Complainant cites McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Volume 5 (2000). This proceeding is not the appropriate forum for a trademark infringement suit. An action of such nature is not properly brought here, but in a court of law or equity. See Palm, Inc. v. South China House of Tech. Consultants Ltd., D2000-1492 (WIPO Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the ICANN Policy is narrow, designed to deal with cybersquatting issues and not trademark infringement issues and/or unfair competition issues).

Although Complainant contends that "[t]here is not website page up at this time," such a statement alone, without more, is surely insufficient to establish that Respondent is engaged in the passive holding of the disputed domain name.

Because Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case with respect to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the Panel is unable to find that Respondent is without rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <loveyourneighbor.net> domain name.

Complainant has failed to allege any facts that establish that:

The mere allegation that Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain name cannot lead to the presumption, or even the inference, that Respondent intends to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant, and therefore Respondent is acting in bad faith.

A Panel is not constrained to hold for a Complainant when a Respondent has failed to respond. See VeriSign Inc. v. VeneSign C.A., D2000-0303 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s default does not automatically lead to a ruling for the Complainant). Furthermore, the Panel will not invent arguments for a Complainant who has failed to adequately establish facts which allege Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b).

Because Complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case with respect to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), the Panel is unable to find that the <loveyourneighbor.net> domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

Because Complainant has failed to establish Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate interests in the registration and use of the disputed subject domain name, and also because the Complainant has failed to establish that the Registration and Use of the subject domain name is in Bad faith, the requested relief cannot be granted, and the <loveyourneighbor.net> domain name will not be transferred to Complainant.

Therefore, the Panel Orders that the above matter be dismissed, without prejudice to renewal by Complainant. Complainant is hereinafter permitted to cure the defects in the Complaint and to commence another proceeding at a later date. However, before doing so, Complainant is urged to obtain competent legal counsel to assist in drafting a Complaint which properly sets forth facts, if they are available, to establish the required elements under ICANN Policy in the event that this matter is pursued further.