The Complainant is P.C.B. Bankcorp, Inc., Largo, FL, USA ("Complainant") represented by J. Todd Timmerman, of Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP. The Respondent is Premier Community Bank, Venice, FL, USA ("Respondent").

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

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

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 12, 2000; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 18, 2000.

On December 13, 2000, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "premiercommunitybank.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 "Policy").

On December 28, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 17, 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@premiercommunitybank.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 January 23, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed John J Upchurch 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 Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "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

Complainant contends Respondent’s domain name is essentially identical to the Complainant’s trade name and service mark Premier Community Bank. Also, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. And finally, Respondent, via a telephone arrangement with Complainant, offered the domain name for sale or lease for valuable consideration in excess of the cost of just registering the domain name itself, which shows Respondent registered and used its domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, P.C.B. Bancorp, Inc., is a Florida corporation that provides banking services to the public under the trade name and service mark "Premier Community Bank". Complainant has been using its trade name and service mark since 1996.

Respondent, Premier Community Bank, is a domain name that is owned by "Discount Buyers Association of America" (DBAA). DBAA’s president, Complainant’s customer, offered to sell or lease the domain name at issue to Complainant for valuable consideration. DBAA is not using the trade name or service mark "Premier Community Bank" in any manner, and is not authorized to engage in the banking business under federal or state law. Accordingly, because Respondent is not authorized to engage in banking business, Florida law prohibits Respondent’s use.

On November 10, 2000, Complainant sent Respondent a letter demanding that it cease and desist from using the domain name at issue, to which Complainant received no response.

Paragraph 15(a) of 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."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

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.

Under the UDRP, Complainant must show that it has rights in the mark, and that the domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

Although Complainant has not shown any evidence of exclusive rights over the domain name at issue, it has shown it has a bona fide basis for making a claim. See Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000) (holding that ICANN Policy 4(a)(i) does not require Complainant to demonstrate ‘exclusive rights,’ but only that complainant has a bona fide basis for making the complaint in the first place).

Also, Respondent’s domain name, premiercommunitybank.com, is identical to Complainant’s marks. See Wembley National Stadium Limited .v. Thomson, D2000-1233 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding that the domain name "wembleystadium.net" is identical to the WEMBLEY STADIUM mark); see also Banco Mercantil del Norte, S.A., v. Servicios de Comunicación En Linea, D2000-1215 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <banorte.com> is identical to Complainant’s BANORTE trademark and commercial name).

Finally, Respondent’s domain name is found to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because a reasonable Internet user would assume the domain name is in some way affiliated with Complainant’s banking services. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has shown the domain name at issue is identical and confusingly similar to its marks.

Complainant has shown Respondent does not conduct any business under the domain name at issue. Accordingly, Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor is Respondent using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods, services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), (ii) and (iii). See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc., FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known by Complainant’s marks and Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. Consequently, Respondent’s failure to show evidence sufficient to rebut Complainant’s assertions, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in regard to the domain name at issue. See Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proved).

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

Complainant has shown Respondent’s domain name implies it offers banking services, which according to federal and state law Respondent is not authorized to do. Accordingly, Respondent’s only use of the domain name in question has been to offer it for sale to the Complainant, which shows Respondent registered its domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket costs. See America Online, Inc. v. Netsbest, FA 93563 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent made no use of the domain name <icqguide.com> other than offering it for sale); see also Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman, AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out of pocket costs in exchange for the registered domain name).

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the domain name in question in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be and is hereby granted.

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