The Complainant is Vapor Blast Mfg Co., Milwaukee, WI, USA ("Complainant"). The Respondent is R & S Technologies Inc., Cedarburg, WI, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "vaporblast.net", registered with Network Solutions.

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

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 1, 2001.

On February 2, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "vaporblast.net" 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 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 February 7, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of February 27, 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@vaporblast.net by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on February 20, 2001.

On February 23, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.

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

Respondent does not address whether the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Nor does Respondent address the issue of rights or legitimate interests. Respondent neither agrees nor denies that it has acted in bad faith, but alleges that Complainant has initiated this action to harass Respondent’s business.

Paragraph No. 1 of the Response is as follows "After reviewing your correspondence we changed our domain name to wetblast.net." (It is assumed that the word "correspondence" equates with the word "Complaint.")

Complainant’s assertions are undisputed and Respondent has voluntarily changed its domain name.

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 identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The Complainant contends that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to its registered trademark and identical to its corporate name. See Asprey & Garrard Ltd v. Canlan Computing, D2000-1262 (WIPO Nov. 14, 2000) (finding that the domain name <asprey.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s "Asprey & Garrard" and "Miss Asprey" marks); Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. v. Toronto Maple Leafs!, D2000-1510 (Jan. 24, 2001) (finding that the domain name <leafs.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks, where Complainant holds many trademarks that contain the term "LEAFS").

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complaint satisfies Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the VAPORBLAST mark because the Respondent does business under the name R & S Technologies. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was not commonly known by the mark or never applied for a license or permission from the Complainant to use the trademarked name).

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name. Thus, Complainant contends that Respondent cannot claim rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights and legitimate interests where the Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to his websites); Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Ostanik, D2000-1611 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <pitneybowe.com> where Respondent purports to resell original Pitney Bowes’ equipment on its website, as well as goods of other competitors of Complainant).

Furthermore, the 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. See Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Domains For Sale, FA 96248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2001).

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complaint satisfies Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

The Complainant contends that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith to disrupt Complainant’s competing business. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Fossil, Inc. v. NAS, FA 92525 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb 23, 2000) (transferring FOSSILWATCH.COM from Respondent watch dealer to Complainant); Gorstew Ltd & Unique Vacations, Inc. v. Satin Leaf, Inc., FA 95414 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2000) (transferring SANDALSAGENCY.COM and SANDALSAGENT.COM from Respondent travel agency to Complainants, who operate Sandals hotels and resorts); Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area).

Finally, Respondent’s failure to respond to Complainant’s specific allegations and its willingness to transfer the domain name to Complainant as reflected in its Response, supports the contention that the domain name was filed and used in bad faith. See Marcor International v. Len Langevin, FA 96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2001) (Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name at issue coupled with its expressed willingness to transfer the name amply satisfies the bad faith requirements set forth in ICANN Policy)

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complaint satisfies Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

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

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