The Complainant is Colgate-Palmolive Company , New York, NY, USA ("Complainant") represented by Bret I Parker, Colgate-Palmolive Company. The Respondent is Domains For Sale, Mathura, Tamil Nadu, India ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is colgatenavigator.com, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

The undersigned 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 a panelist in this proceeding.

Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on December 8, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 8, 2000.

On December 12, 2000, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name colgatenavigator.com is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "ICANN Policy").

On December 12, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 2, 2001 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@colgatenavigator.com by e-mail.

On January 5, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed Honorable Paul A. Dorf (Ret.) as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has improperly registered the domain name at issue which contains Complainant’s trademarks and services marks, and is acting in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent contends that he is not misusing the domain name at issue and will surrender same to the Complainant.

The Complainant is a well-known manufacturer of personal care items, including toothbrushes. The Colgate Navigator is a toothbrush manufactured and sold by Complainant for which the Complainant holds trademark registrations in both the United States and New Zealand.

The Respondent does not offer any information as to the nature of its business.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the 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 Respondent does not offer any information to dispute the fact that the domain name is a mirror of the Complainant’s trademarks Colgate, Navigator and/or Colgate Navigator. The only difference is the addition of the ".com" extension for the top level domain name. See Croatia Airlines v. Kwen Kijong, AF 0302 (eResolution Sept. 25, 2000) (finding that the domain name "croatiaairlines.com" is identical to the Complainant's trademark CROATIA AIRLINES)

Respondent’s willingness to transfer the domain name to Complainant as reflected in its Response is evidence that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In addition, there is no evidence presented by the Respondent that would indicate that it is commonly known by the domain name or that the domain name is being used in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. See The Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

Respondent’s identity of Domains For Sale indicates that it may be engaged in the business of registering and transferring domain names in violation of ICANN Policy 4(b)(i). See Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Domain For Sale VMI, D2000-1195 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (finding "the fact that the manner in which the Respondent chose to identify itself and its administrative and billing contacts both conceals its identity and unmistakably conveys its intention, from the date of the registration, to sell rather than make any use of the disputed domain name").

In addition, as the Complainant is well known worldwide for its products and services, the Respondent should have been aware at the time of the registration of the Complainant’s famous mark. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner, D2000-0277 (WIPO May 30, 2000) (holding that the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s marks at the time of registration given the widespread use and fame of the Complainant’s "Deutsche Bank" mark).

As all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a) have been satisfied, it is the decision of this panelist that the requested relief be granted. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name COLGATENAVIGATOR.COM " be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.