Complainant is Gorstew Limited and Unique Vacations, Inc., Kingston, Jamaica ("Complainant") represented by David B. Newman, of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. Respondent is SSB Trading Company, Inc., Pompano Beach, FL, USA ("Respondent").

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

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 Panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 29, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 29, 2001.

On April 2, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "sandalshotels.com" is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that 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 April 4, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 24, 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@sandalshotels.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 May 2, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin, 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 Respondent.

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

A. Complainant alleges the following:

B. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

Complainant, Gorstew Limited & Unique Vacations, Inc., owns the registered mark SANDALS, which it has used since 1981 in connection with hotel reservation services, sightseeing tours and motor vehicle transportation. In addition, Complainant’s mark is used on merchandise associated with hotel and hospitality services. Complainant’s mark is advertised extensively throughout the world.

Respondent is not a travel agent and does not own, operate or manage any of the hotels that conduct business under Complainant’s mark. Accordingly, Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any form. Currently, Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a complaint site for disgruntled SANDALS customers.

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’s rights are evidenced by its registered mark SANDALS.

Respondent’s domain name, sandalshotels.com, is confusingly similar because it is comprised of Complainant’s famous mark and a generic term that directly relates to Complainant’s business. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the Respondent’s domain name combines the Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the Complainant’s business); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Matthew Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names of "caterpillarparts.com" and "caterpillarspares.com" were found to be confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of "Caterpillar" and "Caterpillar Design" because "the idea suggested by the disputed domain names and the trademarks was that the goods and services offered in association with the domain name are manufactured by or sold by the Complainant or one of the Complainants approved distributors. The disputed trademarks contain one distinct component, the word Caterpillar.").

Also, the disputed domain name is so confusingly similar, a reasonable Internet user would assume the domain name is somehow associated with Complainant’s well-established mark. 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 web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist)

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent licensed or in any way authorized to use Complainant’s famous mark. 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 Complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question).

Further, Respondent asserted no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which entitles the Panel to conclude Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess); see also 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 proven).

Thus, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

The evidence supports the conclusion that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name, which demonstrates bad faith. See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that where Respondent knowingly chose a domain name, identical to Complainant’s mark, to voice its concerns, opinions, and criticism about the Complainant is evidence of bad faith); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names); Kraft Foods (Norway) v. Wide, D2000-0911 (WIPO Sept. 23, 2000) (finding that the fact "that the Respondent chose to register a well known mark to which he has no connections or rights indicates that he was in bad faith when registering the domain name at issue").

Moreover, Respondent registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its web site, or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s famous mark. See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Benjamin Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered the domain names, kwasizabantu.com, kwasizabantu.org, kwasizabantu.net, in bad faith where Respondent published negative comments regarding the Complainant’s organization on the confusingly similar web site); see also Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that the "domain names are so obviously connected with the Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’").

As a result, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been sufficiently satisfied.

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

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