The Complainant is CALEB Tecnologies Corporation, Austin, TX, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Caleb Technologies, Bradfordwoods, PA, USA ("Respondent").

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

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/16/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint 06/16/2000.

On 06/28/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "CALEBTECHNOLOGIES.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 4.0 and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On 06/21/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/11/2000 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 07/11/2000, 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 owns the U.S. trademark application for the mark CALEB (first used in commerce 05/1997; filed 09/13/1999; No. 75/797,707) in connection with decision support system software and software customization development and installation services. The Complainant has pending trademark applications in Canada, the European Union, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, the People’s Republic of China, and Singapore. The Complainant markets its products and services on the Internet at <calebtech.com>.

On 06/29/1998, the Respondent registered the domain name "CALEBTECHNOLOGIES.COM". The website connected with this domain advertises for Caleb Technologies, Inc., a Pennsylvania technology consulting firm and distributor/retailer of computer and networking hardware. According to the complaint, the Pennsylvania Department of Corporations has no record of the Respondent’s incorporation or license to do business in the state of Pennsylvania.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to demonstrate claims that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

The Complainant has rights in the registered mark CALEB. The variation between the Complainant’s mark and the Respondent’s domain name is minor. By adding the word "technologies" the Complainant’s mark, the Respondent has created confusion with the Complainant’s mark. See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000) (holding that the Respondent’s domain name <Marriott-Hotel.com> was confusingly similar to Marriott’s marks and domain name <Marriott.com>).

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). Rather, the Respondent is using a portion of the Complainant’s mark to offer similar services.

The Respondent has made no claim that it is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or 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 similar services and trading upon the CALEB mark. 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>).

In addition to the preceding argument, the failure of Respondent to produce evidence sufficient to rebut Complainant's allegations entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue. See Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., No. D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar. 9, 2000).

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and, therefore, does not deny that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as alleged by Complainant.

The Respondent is also intentionally attracting users to its website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Complainant’s mark. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

The complaint provided copies of both parties’ websites. At the top of the Respondent’s website, the "Caleb Technologies" logo appears. Underneath this, the words "Total Information Technology Solutions" appear. Throughout the Complainant’s website, the Complainant describes its technology focused methods in improving the clients’ business, (i.e. "Based on our requirements and specifications, CALEB Technologies provided the best optimization solutions for our operations."). By offering services similar to those on its website, the Respondent is attempting to attract users by creating confusion with the Complainant’s registered mark and name, CALEB Technologies Corp., and the Respondent’s business, Caleb Technologies, Inc. The Respondent is attempting to create confusion as to the affiliation of the services therein provided. This is evidence of bad faith. See Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv); America Online, Inc. v. Avrasya Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 15, 2000).

Based on the preceding facts, the panel finds that the Respondent 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, "CALEBTECHNOLOGIES.COM", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

July 24, 2000 Honorable Harold Kalina, Arbitrator