The Complainant is Visit America Inc., New York, NY, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Visit America, Santa Monica, CA, USA ("Respondent").

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

The Panelist certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on 06/29/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 07/05/2000.

On 07/05/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "VISITAMERICA.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 07/11/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 07/31/2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by e-mail.

On 08/02/2000, 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 08/03/2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed Honorable 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 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 and confusingly similar 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.

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter. As a result, all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the Complainant will be deemed true.

The Complainant owns the U.S. trademark registration for the mark VISIT AMERICA INC. (registered 03/22/1983; No. 1,232,214) for travel agency services.

The Respondent registered the domain name in question on March 21, 1996. In February 1999, the domain name was placed on hold status by the registrar. There is not an active webpage linked to the domain name.

The WHOIS page indicates that the Respondent is Visit America, located at a California address. There is no business entity doing business in California under the name Visit America. When the Complainant attempted to call the numbers listed on the WHOIS page, the telephone number listed for the billing contact was answered as International Education Services. The telephone number listed for the administrative contact was answered using an unidentified voice mail system.

The Complainant wrote letters regarding the domain name to the administrative contact listed on the WHOIS page. No response was ever received. Instead, the Complainant received a letter from George Kalmar (the billing contact on the domain name’s WHOIS page), who purported to be the President of Transnational Inc. and who offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant for $5,000. It is unknown if Mr. Kalmar is the actual owner of the domain name.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("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; and

(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 VISIT AMERICA INC. The top-level domain ".com" is part of the Internet address and does not add source-identifying significance. The "INC" part of the trademark indicates the type of entity and has no significance as a mark. The distinctive aspect of the Complainant’s mark is VISIT AMERICA. As a result, the Respondent’s domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. See Microsoft Corp. v. Amit Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain name <microsoft.org> is identical to the Complainant’s mark).

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’s "business" is not registered with the California Department of State and it appears that there is no entity doing business under the Respondent’s name.

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).

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question.

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

The Respondent has registered the domain name for the purpose of selling the domain name to the Complainant, for consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). This is revealed by the Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name for $5,000.

The Respondent also provided false information to the registrar of the domain name. There does not appear to be any business entity under the name VISIT AMERICA. The administrative contact information is also false. Evidence that a domain name owner provided incorrect information to a domain name registrar supports a finding of bad faith registration. See Video Direct Distributors, Inc. v. Video Direct, Inc., FA 94724 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 5, 2000)(finding that Respondent acted in bad faith by providing incorrect information to the registrar regarding the owner of the registered name).

Based on the above, the panel concludes that the domain name was registered and used 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, "VISITAMERICA.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson