Complainant is Fiber-Shield Industries, Inc., Yaphank, NY, USA ("Complainant") represented by Patrick O. Killian, of Killian, Legakis, Vetere LLP. Respondent is Flame Shield, Somerset, UK ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <flameshield.net> registered with CORE.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on June 8, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 11, 2001.

On June 14, 2001, CORE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <flameshield.net> is registered with CORE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CORE has verified that Respondent is bound by the CORE 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 14, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 5, 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@flameshield.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 10, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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.

B. Respondent did not file a response in this proceeding.

Since 1981, Complainant has manufactured and sold products under the FLAME-SHIELD mark. On November 27, 1990, Complainant obtained registration of the FLAME-SHIELD trademark on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Registration No. 1,624,284. Complainant’s FLAME-SHIELD mark is used in connection with flame retardant chemicals for commercial and consumer use on fabrics and textiles.

Respondent registered the <flameshield.net> domain name on November 16, 2000. Respondent operates a website, located at the disputed domain name, selling products in competition with Complainant.

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 Respondent is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(2) 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 has established in this proceeding that it registered FLAME-SHIELD as a trademark. The <flameshield.net> domain name registered by Respondent contains in its entirety the relevant words of Complainant’s FLAME-SHIELD trademark. For purposes of finding that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a Complainant’s mark, the deletion of a hyphen is irrelevant. See National Cable Satellite Corp. v. Black Sun Surf Co., FA 94738 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 19, 2000) (holding that the domain name <cspan.net>, which omitted the hyphen from the trademark spelling, C-SPAN, is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark); see also Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive, D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that removing a hyphen in the domain names is not sufficient to differentiate the domain names from the mark).

The fact that Complainant and Respondent reside in different countries does not affect the Panel’s finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered FLAME-SHIELD mark. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which a Respondent operates. It is sufficient that a Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).

The Panel finds that Complainant met the first prong of its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) to show that the domain name in issue is identical to or confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

Complainant also established in this proceeding that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark FLAME-SHIELD. Respondent has failed to come forward to demonstrate that it has any rights to or legitimate interests in the mark that is contained in its entirety within the <flameshield.net> domain name that was registered by Respondent. In the absence of a response, the Panel takes as true Complainant’s allegation. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("[i]n the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint"). Otherwise, the burden rests with Respondent to show rights to or legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety within the domain name in issue. See Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests).

Furthermore, where Respondent makes no response, the Panel will presume that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests with respect to a disputed domain name. 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 Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain names).

In addition, Respondent is unable here to show a bona fide fair and non-commercial use of the domain name; Respondent’s offering of competing products under Complainant’s mark does not constitute use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods. See Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). 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 the use made the subject of Complainant’s registration of its mark and Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was an illegitimate use and not a bona fide offering of goods).

The record permits the inference that Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant’s mark that is contained in its entirety in the <flameshield.net> domain name registered by the Respondent and Respondent has not come forward with any proof to the contrary. See Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). 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 RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (Respondent’s legitimate interest must exist prior to the registration of the domain name and not after continued use). Furthermore, the record permits an inference that Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial, or fair use of the <flameshield.net> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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); 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 Complainant has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark contained in its entirety within the domain name registered by the Respondent and that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests. Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Complainant urges that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith and the record supports this allegation. Respondent registered and used a registered mark that belongs to the Complainant in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website. Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s FLAME-SHIELD mark and products in carrying out this Internet competition. This permits a finding of bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site); see also TM Acquisition Corp. v. Carroll, FA 97035 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 14, 2001) (finding bad faith where Respondent used a domain name, for commercial gain, to intentionally attract users to a direct competitor of Complainant).

Furthermore, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to sell goods in competition with Complainant using Complainant’s own registered mark. This permits a finding of bad faith because Respondent’s registration and use of Complainant’s mark in a competing domain name ultimately disrupts the business of Complainant, who is a competitor of Respondent. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. The Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in issue in bad faith.

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 <flameshield.net> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist