The Complainant is J. Christian Angle Technology Properties, Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Alex Vorot, Personal and Free Domains Parking, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "wwwradioshack.com" registered with Bulkregister.com, 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.

Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 31, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 2, 2001.

On February 7, 2001, Bulkregister.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "wwwradioshack.com" is registered with Bulkregister.com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister.com, Inc. 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 February 19, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 12, 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@wwwradioshack.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 March 21, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Harold Kalina (Ret.) 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

B. Respondent

Respondent has failed to offer a submission for consideration by the Panel in this dispute.

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.

Complainant contends that the domain name is confusingly similar to its mark. Respondent has not contested this allegation.

RadioShack, licensed to use the mark by Complainant, currently has three registrations and four applications for the "RadioShack" mark or applicable variations. The "RadioShack" mark is a well-known mark that has been used in commerce for a long period of time. Hence, Complainant has rights in the "RadioShack" mark.

Respondent has registered a domain name that takes advantage of a common typographical error that many Internet users make when entering domain names into the world wide web—eliminating the period between the "www" and the rest of the Internet address. Internet users searching for Complainant’s website by using the Complainant’s mark would be confused if, having made this common typographical error, they were misdirected to another website. Thus, a domain name that takes advantage of this common typographical error is confusingly similar to any such mark held by the Complainant. Prior UDRP Panels have made similar determinations in factually similar situations. See Bank of America Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademark "Bank of America" because it "takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name) that users commonly make when searching on the Internet"). As such, the domain name in question is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent has not contested this allegation.

Offering bona fide services or products in connection with a website is evidence of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). However, offering services or products, via a confusingly similar domain name, that are comparable to the products and services of the trademark owner, is not a bona fide use of the domain name. See America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that "[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark and for the same business). As such, Respondent’s above described use of the domain name is not evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Thus, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Complainant contends that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Respondent has not contested this allegation.

Respondent has linked the domain name to a website offering similar merchandise for sale to Internet users. This conduct has been held to be an element of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns and Matt Oettinger, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the Respondent registered and used the domain name "eebay.com" in bad faith where Respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites); Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA 95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks).

This Panelist finds no reason to divert from UDRP precedent in this case. Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name to offer competing products. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Thus, Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

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 "wwwradioshack.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.