The Complainant is Collegetown Relocation, L.L.C., Princeton, NJ, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is John M. Mamminga, Vancouver, WA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "COLLEGETOWN.COM", registered with Network Solutions Inc ("NSI").

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/12/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/12/2000.

On 06/15/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "COLLEGETOWN.COM" is registered with NSI and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NSI has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions Service Agreement Version 5.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On , a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of Thursday 07/06/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.

On 07/06/2000, 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 July 13, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records in the case file, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that The Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform 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 the Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is identical to its trademark registered for and in use by the Complainant. Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the domain name, and that the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

Respondent was notified by The Forum that in order to contest the claim made against him, he had to file and serve his Response not later than July 6, 2000. He failed to meet that deadline. On Monday July 10, 2000, Respondent filed a Response without any supporting exhibits or other tangible offer of proof, and without an explanation for his untimely filing. The Forum’s notification to Respondent and The Code of Procedure Part II, Commencement of Arbitration, clearly set forth the procedure and Time Periods to contest a Claim. Respondent failed to meet those requirements. Accordingly, the undersigned has elected to reject the untimely Response filed by Respondent. However, in order to avoid a gross miscarriage of justice, a review of Respondent’s submission has been made. The contentions set forth by the Respondent in that filing are not sufficient to deny Complainant the relief it seeks. See UFCW International vs. United Automotive, FA#94665 (National Arbitration Forum, June 6, 2000.)

The Complainant is the owner of the U.S. trademark COLLEGETOWN (filed 09/27/1995; registered 10/29/1996; No. 2,011,820) for use in providing multiple user access to a global computer information network involving educational institutions. The Complainant also owns the U.S. trademark COLLEGETOWN RELOCATION (filed 10/27/1994; registered 08/20/1996; No. 1,996,120) for providing real estate information. The Complainant acquired the marks through assignment from the Complainant’s predecessors.

The Respondent is affiliated with a company named Job Advantage. The Respondent registered the domain name in question on 03/01/1999. The Respondent also registered the domain name <jobadvantage.com> in May 1999. The Respondent has filed for trademark registration of the mark, JOB ADVANTAGE (filing date 07/06/1999; No. 75-725273) for job searches, resume preparation, and job placement services.

The Complainant contacted the Respondent regarding transfer of the domain name in question. The Respondent stated that he had plans for the website and was not actively seeking purchase. However, the Respondent indicated that he would be willing to listen to a "serious offer" or "an offer he can’t refuse."

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") directs that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements to support a claim 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.

The Complainant has rights in the registered mark COLLEGETOWN. The Respondent’s mark is identical to the Complainant’s registered mark, except for the addition of the domain name level designation "com". See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as "net" or "com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in question. The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

The domain name in question is not a mark by which the Respondent is commonly known. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Respondent conducts business under its registered mark JOB ADVANTAGE. The Respondent registered the domain name in question over four years after the Complainant registered its mark and began using it in commerce.

The Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services nor is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the site. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). Instead, the Respondent seeks to profit from its registration of said domain name by offering competing services and trading upon the image associated with the Collegetown name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (iii). See Cunard Line Ltd. v. Champion Travel, Inc., FA 92053 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 7, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <cunardcruise.com>).

For the above stated reasons, the panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name "COLLEGETOWN.COM".

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent acted and is acting in bad faith. The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

The Respondent registered the domain name in question in bad faith. When registering domain names, the Respondent has a duty to investigate and refrain from using a domain name that infringes on a third party’s rights. See Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Sound Choice Disc Jockeys Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (holding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because of the failure to select, register, and use a domain name that did not infringe on the rights of a third party).

The Respondent is also intentionally attracting users to its website <jobadvantage.com> by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Complainant’s mark and corresponding website. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). When the domain name in question is entered into the computer, the user is transported to the Respondent’s website <sharkbowl.com>, which contains a link to <jobadvantage.com>. The sharkbowl site states that it is "under construction" and the job advantage site offers information about campus organizations, student volunteer opportunities, and employment opportunities on college campuses.

By offering similar services, the Respondent is attempting to create confusion with the Complainant’s registered mark and corresponding services. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Respondent is also attempting to create confusion as to the location of the Complainant’s authentic website and the affiliation of the services therein provided. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). This is evidence of bad faith. See America Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 15, 2000).

For the previously stated reasons, the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "COLLEGETOWN.COM", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

July 20, 2000 Honorable Harold Kalina, Arbitrator