Complainant is Dialpad Communications, Inc., Santa Clara , CA ("Complainant") represented by Miguel Alcantar, of Dialpad Communications, Inc.. Respondent is Macrolite Trading Corp., Pasig City, Philippines ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are <dialpad.ph> and <dialpad.com.ph>, registered with dotPHone, Inc.

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 July 27, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 2, 2001.

On July 30, 2001, dotPHone, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <dialpad.ph> and <dialpad.com.ph> are registered with dotPHone, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The registrar dotPHone, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the dotPHone, Inc. 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 3, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 23, 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@dialpad.ph and postmaster@dialpad.com.ph 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 August 31, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

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

Complainant has used its DIALPAD mark in connection with its online services. Complainant registered its DIALPAD mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and on April 5, 2000 filed a trademark application with the Philippine Intellectual Property Office.

Respondent, a customer of Complainant, registered the <dialpad.ph> and <dialpad.com.ph> domain names on February 24, 2000 but has failed to make any use of the domain names since their registrations.

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 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 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 that it has rights in the DIALPAD mark through its registration with authorities in the United States. Although Complainant has a trademark application for its DIALPAD mark pending with the Philippine Intellectual Property Office, it is not necessary that Complainant have a registered mark in the country in which Respondent is located in order to have standing to file a complaint under ICANN Rules and Policy. It is only necessary that Complainant establish rights in its mark in some jurisdiction. 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).

Furthermore, the <dialpad.ph> and <dialpad.com.ph> domain names are identical to Complainant’s DIALPAD mark but for the ".com" and ".ph" TLDs. It is well established that the addition of a TLD does not defeat a claim that a disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to a Complainant’s mark. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding <pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic top-level domain ".com" after the name POMELLATO is not relevant); see also 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).

The Panel finds that Complainant met the requirements necessary to prevail under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Respondent has failed to submit a response in this proceeding and the Panel may, therefore, 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).

It is well established that a Panel may infer that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names when 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).

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names and Respondent has brought no proof that Respondent has such rights. 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 Complainant satisfied the requirements to prevail under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Complainant urges that Respondent’s registration and passive holding of the <dialpad.ph> and <dialpad.com.ph> domain names supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Alitalia –Linee Aeree Italiane S.p.A v. Colour Digital, D2000-1260 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name in question and there are no other indications that the Respondent could have registered and used the domain name in question for any non-infringing purpose); see also DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000) (concluding that the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). The proof in this proceeding supports that allegation.

In addition, because Respondent was a customer of Complainant, and thus aware of the existence of Complainant’s mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names, such evidence also 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 Complainant satisfied the requirements in order to prevail under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

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 names <dialpad.ph> and <dialpad.com.ph> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.