The Complainant is Liberty Public Limited Company, London, England ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Thomas Guarrera, New York, NY, USA ("Respondent").

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

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

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

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

On 07/12/2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "LIBERTYOFLONDON.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 07/13/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of 08/02/2000 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 08/07/2000, 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 August 10, 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, 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.

The Respondent submitted no response in this matter.

As a result of the Respondent’s failure to respond, all reasonable inferences of fact in the Complaint will be deemed true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000).

The Complainant manufactures and sells a wide variety of merchandise, including fabric, linens, towels, curtains, apparel, gifts, and housewares under the trademark Liberty of London. The first store opened in 1875. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark LIBERTY OF LONDON in the United States, Canada, and Japan (U.S. Registration date: 11/03/1987; No. 1,463,579). The Complainant owns the domain name <liberty-of-london.com>.

On May 4, 1999 the Respondent registered the domain name in question. The Respondent has not attempted to make any active use of the domain name since it was registered. The website that corresponds to the domain name in question displays a holding page that is supplied by the registrar.

In August 1999, the Complainant offered the Respondent $600 for transfer of the domain name. The Respondent replied that the offer was "not even in the right playing field."

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;

(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 trademark LIBERTY OF LONDON. The Respondent’s domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark. See Internet America Inc v. Internet America, D2000-0355 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name <internetamerica.com> is identical to 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 Respondent is not commonly known by a name that is identical to or similar to the domain name in question. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

The Respondent has not used the domain name to offer bona fide goods or services. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). The Respondent has not used the domain name to offer fair or legitimate noncommercial services. Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Rather, the Respondent is passively holding the domain name in question and preventing the Complainant from utilizing its mark in a domain name.

The panel determines that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has not denied that assertion.

ICANN Policy requires that the Complainant prove registration and use in bad faith. See World Wrestling Fed. Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, D0099-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000).

The Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant’s long standing and well known mark when Respondent registered the domain name. In fact, the only reasonable inference is that the Respondent chose this particular name because of the Complainant’s mark. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, D2000-0277 (WIPO May 30, 2000) ("[T]he domain name is so obviously connected with the Complainant and its services that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith).

The Respondent registered the domain name in question with the intent to sell it given the fact that he has made no use of the domain name since registration. Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). The Respondent is attempting the sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs, as revealed by the Respondent’s statement that $600 was "not even in the right playing field." Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). The panel concludes that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

The Respondent has made no legitimate use of the domain name since registration over a year ago. Passive holding of the domain name with the knowledge that it infringes on a trademark of another is evidence of bad faith. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). The panel concludes that the domain name was 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, "LIBERTYOFLONDON.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.