The Complainant is CMG, Worldwide, Inc. , Indianapolis, IN, USA ("Complainant") represented by Johnathan Faber, CMG Worldwide, Inc.. The Respondent is Steve Gregory, Angeles City, PH ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is dianaspencer.com registered with Network Solutions.

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.

Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on September 21, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 18, 2000.

On September 22, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name dianaspencer.com is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On September 25, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 15, 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@diananspencer.com 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 October 24, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One 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.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a response in this matter.

Complainant asserts that it is the authorized representative for The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund ("Memorial Fund"). This assertion is unchallenged by Respondent. As an authorized representative, Complainant claims to have been charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Memorial Fund’s rights and protecting the its intellectual property from unauthorized uses.

Respondent registered the domain name dianaspencer.com in April 2000. The web site associated with the domain name displays the message "This Domain Name is For Sale." Respondent did not respond Complainant’s UDRP complaint.

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.

Complainant asserts that it is the authorized representative of the Memorial Fund. As such, it asserts that it is responsible for retrieving domain names utilizing the name of the late princes on behalf of the Memorial Fund. Undoubtedly, the Princess Diana name, including Diana Spencer, is entitled to common law trademark protection. See Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that trademark registration was not necessary and that the name "Julia Roberts" has sufficient secondary association with the Complainant that common law trademark rights exist).

The domain name at issue is identical to the late Princess Diana’s maiden name, Diana Spencer, except for the addition of ‘.com.’ See Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (Finding Respondent’s domain name, karlalbrecht.com, identical to Complainant’s common law mark).

Therefore, this Panel finds, based on the evidence presented that Complainant has established that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, thereby satisfying ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

By not responding to the complaint, Respondent has failed to demonstrate that it has any rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name dianaspencer.com. Therefore, this panel concludes that Respondent has no such rights.

Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name are in bad faith. Respondent has offered to sell the domain name. See Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, D2000-0044 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that a general offer of sale combined with no legitimate use of the domain name constitutes registration and use in bad faith). See also Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, D2000-0277 (WIPO May 30, 2000) (finding that the name was registered in bad faith because of the short time frame between the Respondent’s registration and the unsolicited offer of sale to the Complainant).

Respondent is currently using the domain name as a link to commercial banner advertisements, unrelated to any bona fide or good faith use. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and pornographic material). See also Bama Rags, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 94380 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 8, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attracted users to advertisements).

Complainant having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy, it is the decision of this panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain name dianaspencer.com be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.