Complainant is Richard Juzwin, Hawthorn Victoria, Australia ("Complainant"). Respondent is Glen Stephens Stamps, Jackson, MI, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <richardjuzwin.com>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on June 20, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 26, 2001.

On June 22, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <richardjuzwin.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 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 29, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 19, 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@richardjuzwin.com by e-mail.

A late response was received on July 26, 2001. In reviewing the response, it appears that it does not comply with ICANN Rules 5(a) or 5(b). Specifically:

Moreover, the response does not contain any colorable assertions regarding Respondent's rights, interests, or use of the <richardjuzwin.com> domain name as provided in Policy ¶ 4(c).

Therefore, the Panel determines that this Response is incomplete and is treating this case as a Default.

On July 27, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

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

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that:

B. Respondent

Response does not assert any colorable argument.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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."

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.

Although Complainant has not registered his business name, Complainant has established rights in the RICHARD JUZWIN mark by virtue of the long and continuous use and the international reputation it has developed within its field. The ICANN dispute resolution policy is "broad in scope" in that "the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice" to support a domain name complaint under the policy. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000); see also MatchNet PLC. V. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (citing British Broadcasting Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000)) (noting that the UDRP "does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names" and applying the UDRP to "unregistered trademarks and service marks"); see also Estate of Tupac Shakur v. Shakur Info Page, AF-0346 (eResolution Sept. 28, 2000) (finding that a "person may acquire such a reputation in his or her own name as to give rise to trademark rights in that name at common law").

The <richardjuzwin.com> domain name is identical to Complainant's RICHARD JUZWIN mark with the exception of the generic top-level domain designation. It is well settled that such an addition is without significance. See e.g., 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 (gTLD) ".com" after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).

The Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Respondent uses the <richardjuzwin.com> domain name to resolve to its own competing website. It is firmly established that such a use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See, e.g., Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from the Complainant's site to a competing website); see also North Coast Med., Inc. v. Allegro Med., FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its competing website).

Respondent is not licensed or in any way authorized to use Complainant’s RICHARD JUZWIN mark and is not commonly known by the <richardjuzwin.com> domain name. Moreover, Respondent is using Complainant's mark to offer competing goods and services, which does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Thus, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question); see also Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s products to Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent and Complainant are both in the same specialized field. Respondent is using the <richardjuzwin.com> domain name to resolve to its own website, thus preventing users from contacting Complainant's business. These circumstances provide strong evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See SR Motorsports v. Rotary Performance, FA 95859 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 4, 2001) (finding it "obvious" that the domain names were registered for the primary purpose of disrupting the competitor's business when the parties are part of the same, highly specialized field); see also Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the Complainant, a competitor of the Respondent).

Furthermore, Complainant asserts that Respondent's use of the <richardjuzwin.com> domain name has already caused confusion and is likely to continue to do so as to whether Complainant sponsors, endorses or is otherwise affiliated with Respondent's website. Such an intentional attempt, for commercial gain, to cause confusion constitutes bad faith under 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 Net2phone Inc. v. Netcall SAGL, D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding constructive notice as a result of Complainant’s widespread promotional efforts coupled with diversion from Complainant’s site to Respondents for competing commercial gain is sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use).

And finally, Respondent provided an incorrect address for the owner's contact information to Network Solutions, Inc. when Respondent registered the <richardjuzwin.com> domain name. Providing false or misleading information is further evidence of bad faith registration. See, e.g., Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirector, D2000-0111, (WIPO Apr. 11, 2000) (finding that providing false or misleading information in connection with the registration of the domain name is evidence of bad faith).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

Having established all three elements under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <richardjuzwin.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

John J. Upchurch

Dated: August 2, 2001