The Complainant is Technology Properties, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Syed Hussain, Closter, NJ, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.COM", "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.ORG", and "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.NET", registered with Network Solutions Inc. ("NSI") and "RADIOSHACKCORP.COM" registered with Alabanza, Inc.

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 August 14, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 14, 2000.

On August 17, 2000, NSI confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain names "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.COM", "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.ORG", and "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.NET", are 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 August 17, 2000, Alabanza, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "RADIOSHACKCORP.COM" is registered with Alabanza, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.

On August 17, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 6, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@radioshackcorporation.com, postmaster@radioshackcorp.com, postmaster@radioshackcorporation.net, and postmaster@radioshackcorporation.org by e-mail.

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 September 12, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s 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 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 names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and has registered the domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not contested the allegations of the Complainant. ICANN Uniform Rule 14(b) provides that, absent exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall draw inferences, as it deems appropriate, from the failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Uniform Rules.

The Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of RadioShack Corporation. The Complainant owns the trademark "RadioShack" and licenses its to RadioShack.

The Complainant, or its predecessors, has used the two-word mark "RADIO SHACK" since 1924. The Complainant has used the one word mark "RadioShack" since 1995. The Complainant currently owns multiple trademark registrations and applications for the mark "RadioShack" and its variations.

The Respondent registered the domain names on the same day that Tandy Corporation publicly announced that it changed its name to "RadioShack Corporation". The Respondent has verbally offered to sell the disputed domain names to the Complainant for $2,000.00.

The Respondent (also known as CPIC NET and MIC) has registered at least one hundred domain names, many of which are the same as or deceptively similar to a famous trademark or a misspelled derivation thereof. The Respondent is a "cyber-squatter" hoping to monetarily benefit from the registration of domain names containing famous trademarks.

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 mark "Radio Shack". The Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names in question is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks. See Marriott Int’l v. Café au lait, FA 93670, (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s domain name <marriott-hotel.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark "Marriott").

There is no evidence that would indicate that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names in question, other than it has registered the domain names to profit from the sale of the domain names.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names that contain the Complainant’s marks. Policy ¶ 4.c.(ii). The Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a fair noncommercial use. Policy ¶ 4.c.(i), (iii). The Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. See Slep-tone Entertainment Corp. v. Sound Choice Disk Jockeys, Inc., FA 93636 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the domain name infringes on the Complainant’s mark).

The Respondent has registered the domain names for the purpose of selling them to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documented out of pocket expenses. Policy ¶ 4.b.(i). This is revealed by the Respondent’s offer to sell the domain names for $2,000.00. The Respondent took advantage of the public announcement that Tandy Corporation was changing its name to RadioShack by registering the domain names on the same day as a public announcement of a company’s name change. This is also evidence of bad faith. See Cree, Inc. v. The Domain Name You Have Entered is For Sale, FA 94790 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent purchased the domain names on the date of the Complainant’s press release regarding a merger and business expansion).

The Respondent also has engaged in a pattern of registering numerous domain names that infringe on famous marks. Preventing owners of marks from reflecting the marks in domain names, provided there is a pattern of conduct, is evidence of bad faith. Policy ¶ 4.b.(ii).

The Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the domain names 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 names, "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.COM", "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.ORG", "RADIOSHACKCORPORATION.NET", and "RADIOSHACKCORP.COM" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.