Complainant is Internet Billing Company, Ltd., Ft. Lauderdale, FL ("Complainant"), represented by Robert C. Kain, Jr. of Fleit, Kain, Gibbons, Gutman & Bongini, P.L. Respondent is Purechip, Bangrak, Bangkok, Thailand ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <ibilltrust.com>, registered with Register.com.

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 15, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 16, 2001.

On August 16, 2001, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <ibilltrust.com> is registered with Register.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com 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 17, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 6, 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@ibilltrust.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 27, 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 the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The <ibilltrust.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IBILL registered service mark.

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

Respondent’s passive holding of the <ibilltrust.com> domain name constitutes bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response was received.

Since 1995 Complainant has used its IBILL.COM service mark, inter alia, in connection with its billing and collection services on the Internet. Complainant has invested extensively to promote its IBILL marks and their association with Complainant’s business goodwill and reputation. Complainant has spent over $1,000,00 to develop its web site with the domain name <ibill.com> and promote its services under the IBILL marks.

During the year 2000, Complainant’s co-branded billing and collection services handled about $500,000,000 in consumer transactions. In that same year, Complainant’s exclusively branded billing and collection services handled about $380,000,000 in consumer transactions.

Complainant registered its IBILL.COM service mark on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on March 17, 1998 as Registration No. 2,143,923.

Respondent registered the <ibilltrust.com> domain name on November 13, 2000. Respondent has failed to make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, other than to offer it for auction at another website.

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 has established rights in its IBILL.COM mark through its registration on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Even though Respondent’s contact information indicates that it is located in Thailand, it is well established that a Complainant need only to prove that it has rights in a mark in some jurisdiction, not necessarily the jurisdiction of the respondent. 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 <ibilltrust.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IBILL.COM service mark because it merely adds the generic word "trust," to Complainant’s mark. The addition of a generic word to Complainant’s mark makes the disputed domain name confusingly to Complainant’s mark. See PG&E Corp. v. Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that "Respondent does not by adding the common descriptive or generic terms ‘corp’, ‘corporation’ and ‘2000’ following ‘PGE’, create new or different marks in which it has rights or legitimate interests, nor does it alter the underlying PG&E mark held by Complainant").

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

Respondent has failed to come forward to refute Complainant’s allegation that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <ibilltrust.com> domain name. Numerous administrative panels have held that where a Respondent fails to submit a response, a Panel may conclude that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. 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 they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that under certain circumstances the mere assertion by the Complainant that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).

Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name further establishes that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <ibilltrust.com> domain name. See American Home Prod. Corp. v. Malgioglio, D2000-1602 (WIPO Feb. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <solgarvitamins.com> where Respondent merely passively held the domain name); see also Bloomberg L.P. v. Sandhu, FA 96261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding that no rights or legitimate interest can be found when Respondent fails to use disputed domain names in any way); see also Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent made no use of the infringing domain names).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied, and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <ibilltrust.com> domain name.

Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name at auction violates Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), in that Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the domain name. See Wrenchead.com, Inc. v. Hammersla, D2000-1222 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2000) (finding that offering the domain name for sale at an auction site is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also Little Six, Inc v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding Respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant was evidence of bad faith).

Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that merely holding an infringing domain name without active use can constitute use in bad faith).

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