Complainant is Dialpad Communications, Inc., Santa Clara, CA ("Complainant") represented by Kevin Chou and Miguel Alcántar, of Dialpad Communications, Inc. Respondent is Jung Hwan-soo, Ansan Kyonggido, KOREA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <dialpadworld.com>, registered with Netpia.com, 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 August 16, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 16, 2001.

On August 16, 2001, Netpia.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <dialpadworld.com> is registered with Netpia.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Netpia.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Netpia.com, 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 20, 2001, a Korean language Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification") setting a deadline of September 10, 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@dialpadworld.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 24, 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.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Korean language Commencement Notification and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.

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

A. Complainant urges the following:

B. Respondent did not file a response.

Complainant has built a Voice over IP (VoIP) platform enabling the company to be a leading global provider of VoIP solutions for carriers, businesses and consumers. Complainant’s international calling service is called "Dialpadworld." The "Dialpadworld" service was launched on February 8, 2001—a few days before Respondent registered <dialpadworld.com> on February 12, 2001.

Complainant is the holder of United States trademark application Number 75/818259, filed October 7, 1999, and Korean trademark registration Number 9875/2000, filed April 4, 2000. Complainant also owns several other pending and registered trademarks for the DIALPAD and DIALPAD WORLD marks.

Complainant sent Respondent a series of cease and desist letters. In his June 13, 2001 response to Complainant’s second cease and desist letter, Respondent explains his reasons for registering the domain name (as translated from Korean by Complainant) as follows:

On June 5, 2001, Respondent established an "Internet Business" website at http://www.dialpadworld.com.

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.

Given Complainant’s pending and registered trademarks for the DIALPAD and DIALPADWORLD marks, Complainant has proven its rights in these marks. See

Phone-N-Phone Serv. (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Shlomi (Salomon) Levi, D2000-0040 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (finding that the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s pending service mark application).

The infringing domain name, <dialpadworld.com>, is merely a combination of (1) Complainant's mark, "Dialpad," (2) the term "world," which is tied to the "Dialpadworld" international calling service offered by Complainant, and (3) the most common commercial URL suffix, ".com." The addition of a generic word such as "world" to Complainant’s DIALPAD mark does not create a distinct domain name but instead creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark used to create the domain name. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Casino Yahoo, Inc., D2000-0660 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding the domain name <casinoyahoo.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark).

Based on the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the elements required to prevail that are set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant has established rights to and legitimate interest in the mark contained in its entirety in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the infringing domain name. The domain name is not tied to Respondent’s natural or legal business name, trademark, or a part thereof, and Respondent has no other legal rights to the domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Complainant has not asked Respondent to register the domain name <dialpadworld.com> on behalf of Complainant. In addition, Respondent cannot claim to be commonly known by the <dialpadworld.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). E.g., Victoria’s Secret et al v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).

Respondent has used the domain name to divert Internet consumers from Complainant to Respondent. This is not a bona fide offering of goods under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name such as would give Respondent rights to the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to his websites); 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 established the necessary elements to prevail that are set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. As stated above, Respondent told Complainant after the cease and desist letter that he registered the <dialpadworld.com> domain name for a proposed business venture similar to the "yellow pages." Although Respondent stated that this service was different from Complainant’s enterprise, Respondent’s proposed service would, in fact, be significantly tied to Dialpad’s VoIP services. If Respondent engaged in such disrupting and competing conduct, his actions would constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). E.g., VeriSign, Inc. v. Nandini Tandon, D2000-1216 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent has connections with a competitor of the Complainant’s digital security business and the Respondent indicated that she intended to enter the same business); cf. Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full Sys., FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant by offering personal e-mail accounts under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical to Complainant’s services under the OPENMAIL mark).

In addition, the creation and ongoing existence of the Respondent’s website currently set forth at <dialpadworld.com> contributes to a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) states that intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by using a domain name that is confusingly similar to a Complainant’s mark, thus creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or products and services on the website is evidence of bad faith. By linking the confusingly similar <dialpadworld.com> domain name to Respondent’s "Internet Business" website, which is assumed to be a commercial venture, Respondent acted in bad faith. Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Jaspreet Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent directed Internet users seeking the Complainant’s site to its website for commercial gain).

Given the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has shown that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith, as required by 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 name <dialpadworld.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.