The Complainant is Jon-Don Products, Inc., Roselle, IL, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is CarpetSolutions, Atlanta, GA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "JON-DON.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.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on July 24, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 24, 2000.

On July 28, 2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "JON-DON.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 ICANNís UDRP.

On July 28, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 17, 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 Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by e-mail. It was also emailed to postmaster@jon-don.com.

On August 22, 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 23, 2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member panel, The Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody 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 Forumís 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:

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit a response in this matter. Accordingly, all reasonable inferences of fact in the Complaint will be deemed true.

The Registrant of the domain name in question is CarpetSolutions. The administrative contact is Marion Johnson, CarpetSolutions. The panel determines that the Marion Johnson registered the domain name under his businessís name, CarpetSolutions.

The Complainant has used the trademarked name "JON-DON" in interstate commerce in connection with its carpet cleaning, floor cleaning, general cleaning, water and fire damage restoration, and janitorial supplies business. The Complainant has used the mark in connection with its services since 1978. The Complainant holds a certificate of trademark registration for the service mark "JON-DON" (No. 2,248,806).

The Respondent was one of the Complainantís long-standing customers as evidenced by a series of invoices for purchases by the Respondent from April 4, 1997 ñ April 21, 1999.

On May 19, 1997 the Respondent registered the domain names "JON-DON.COM", "JON-DON.NET", and "JON-DON.ORG".

The Respondent offered to sell the domain names to the Complainant and the Complainantís competitors for prices ranging between $12,000 and $25,000. Also, the website located at the domain name "JON-DON.COM" offers the domain name for sale or lease.

The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct of registering domain names and attempting to sell them for prices in excess of out of pocket costs. For example, in one of the letters from the Respondent, he admits to selling domain names to Laface Records for $15,000.

The Complainantís attorney sent a "cease and desist" letter to the Respondent in December of 1998. The Respondent faxed a response in which he stated, "Being a businessman you cannot fault me for trying to make a ëbuckí."

On or about May 1, 1999, the Respondent informed the Complainant that his partner intended to use the domain name "jon-don.com" for a pornographic site if the deal to sell the websites did not move forward.

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 submitted evidence showing that it owns and has rights in the registered service mark "JON-DON". The panel finds that the Respondentís domain name is identical to the Complainantís mark. See Technology Properties, Inc. v. Burris, FA 94424 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding that the domain name <radioshack.net> is identical to the Complainantís mark, RADIO SHACK).

Because the Respondent has failed to submit a response, the Panel accepts as true all allegations alleged in the Complaint. See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000). The Panel may also draw any inferences it believes are appropriate given the Respondentís failure to respond. See id.

The Panel finds that the Respondent lacks any rights in the domain name or legitimate basis for registration and use of the domain name.

The Respondentís cleaning business is known by the name "CarpetSolutions." The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question. Policy  4.c.(ii).

The Respondent is using the domain name in order to extort money from the Complainant or the Complainantís competitors by offering the domain name for sale or lease. The Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Policy  4.b.(i).

The Respondent also is using the domain name to publish pornographic and inappropriate material on the corresponding websites. This is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Policy  4.b.(iii).

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

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

Being that the Respondent was a former customer of the Complainant, the Respondent obviously had knowledge of the Complainantís business name and mark, "JON-DON" when he registered the domain names "JON-DON.COM", "JON-DON.NET", and "JON-DON.ORG". The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling or leasing the domain names to the Complainant or the Complainantís competitors for valuable consideration in excess of out-pocket costs related to the domain name. Policy  4.b.(i). This is evidenced by the Respondentís open-ended offer on the corresponding websites to sell or lease the domain names. Also, the Respondent offered to sell the domain names to the Complainant directly in correspondence between the Respondent and Complainant. This is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. See World Wrestling Fed. Entertainment, Inc. v. Bosman, D0099-0001 (WIPO Jan. 14, 2000) (finding that Respondent used the domain name in bad faith because he offered to sell the domain name for valuable consideration in excess of any out of pocket costs).

Other instances described in the Complaint are evidence of bad faith. For example, the Respondent, a competitor of the Complainant, registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Policy  4.b.(iii). Also, the Respondentís threat to display pornographic material on the websites is evidence of bad faith. See MatchNet plc. V. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that association of confusingly similar domain name with pornographic website can constitute bad faith).

The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. See The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd. v. Powell, D2000-0038 (WIPO Mar. 17, 2000) (finding registration and use in bad faith where the Respondent knew of the Complainantís mark before registering the domain name and sought commercial gain from the website).

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, "JON-DON.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.