Complainant is Yukon Quest International, Fairbanks, AK ("Complainant") represented by Layne St. John, of Yukon Quest International. Respondent is Trilobyte Technology, Fairbanks, AK ("Respondent").

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

On August 28, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist.

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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on July 23, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 25, 2001.

On July 26, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <yukonquest.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that 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 August 1, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 21, 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@yukonquest.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.

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.

A. Complainant

The <yukonquest.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s YUKON QUEST registered trademark.

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

Respondent registered and used the <yukonquest.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No response was received.

Since 1984, Complainant has used its YUKON QUEST mark in connection with the organization of dog sled competitions and related merchandise. Complainant registered its YUKON QUEST trademark on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 30, 2001, as Registration No. 2,424,370.

Complainant entered into negotiations with Respondent to transfer the disputed domain to Complainant. Respondent, however, refused to accept any amount less than $4,000 for the <yukonquest.com> domain name.

Respondent registered the <yukonquest.com> domain name on April 23, 1997. At one time, Respondent displayed banned advertisements located at the disputed domain name. Currently, when Internet users enter the website of the disputed domain name they are presented only with the word "Closed" at the top of the webpage.

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 YUKON QUEST trademark, through its extensive use in commerce from 1984 to the present, as well as its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 30, 2001. It is not necessary that Complainant’s registration precede Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, the Policy only requires a Complainant to establish rights in a mark. See Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (finding that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does not require "that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist"). 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).

The <yukonquest.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s YUKON QUEST trademark. The addition of the ".com" gTLD is of no consequence for purposes of finding that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar. See 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); see also Amherst v. IFC Corp., FA 96768 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 3, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <customcommerce.com> is identical to Complainant’s CUSTOM COMMERCE trademark registration).

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

It is well established that a Panel has the discretion to find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where 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).

Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a response the Panel is permitted to 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).

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

Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant’s for no less than $4,000 constitutes registration and use of the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), as the amount is in excess of any documented out-of-pocket costs associated with the domain name. See 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); see also Dollar Rent A Car Sys. Inc. v. Jongho, FA 95391 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrates bad faith by registering the domain name for the purpose of transferring the domain name in the amount of $3,000, an amount in excess of out of pocket costs).

Furthermore, by displaying banner advertisements on a website located at the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion in bad faith, pursuant to 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).

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