Complainant is Ohio Lottery Commission, Cleveland, OH, USA ("Complainant") represented by Susan D. Rector, of Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., L.P.A. Respondent is Private, Moscow, Russia ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <ohiolotto.com> registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc.

On July 16, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. The undersigned certifies that he 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 June 11, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 12, 2001.

On June 13, 2001, BulkRegister.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <ohiolotto.com> is registered with BulkRegister.com, Inc. and that 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 June 18, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 9, 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@ohiolotto.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.

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

The <ohiolotto.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's U.S. registered trademark.

Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the <ohiolotto.com> domain name.

Respondent has registered and used the <ohiolotto.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response was received.

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 has established that it has rights in the OHIO LOTTERY mark by virtue of its federal registration. The <ohiolotto.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's OHIO LOTTERY mark in that it contains the generally accepted abbreviation ("lotto") for the word "lottery." See Minnesota State Lottery v. Mendes, FA 96701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 2, 2001) (finding that the <mnlottery.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MINNESOTA STATE LOTTERY registered mark).

The Panel finds that Policy 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.

Respondent has not come forward to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in the <ohiolotto.com> domain name. There is a presumption that a Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to a disputed domain name when that Respondent fails to submit a response. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names); see also Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding that failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true).

The <ohiolotto.com> domain name is being used as a link to other commercial gambling sites. This diversion does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Computer Doctor Franchise Sys., Inc. v. The Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names); see also Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name).

There is no evidence in the record to establish that Respondent is commonly known by the <ohiolotto.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Great S. Wood Pres., Inc. v. TFA Assocs., FA 95169 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 5, 2000) (finding that Respondent was not commonly known by the domain name <greatsouthernwood.com> where Respondent linked the domain name to <bestoftheweb.com>).

There is no evidence in the record to establish that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, directing users to a different website can be evidence of no legitimate use. See AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of the domain name to direct users to other, unconnected websites does not constitute a legitimate interest in the domain name).

In light of the above, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <ohiolotto.com> domain name. See Body Shop Int’l PLC v. CPIC NET & Hussain, D2000-1214 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2000) (finding "that on the evidence provided by the Complainant and in the absence of any submissions from the Respondents, that the Complainant has established that (i) the Respondents are not using and have not used, or are not demonstrating and have not demonstrated, an intent to use the said domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondents are not and have not been commonly known by the said domain name; and (iii) the Respondents are not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the said domain name, without intending to mislead and divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s <THE BODY SHOP> trademark and service mark").

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

Respondent's registration and use of the <ohiolotto.com> domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to another on-line location by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's OHIO LOTTERY mark is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent directed Internet users seeking the Complainant’s site to its website for commercial gain).

Furthermore, given the similarity between the state-sponsored lottery games of chance offered by the Complainant and the gambling links established by Respondent, it is likely that the Respondent registered and used the <ohiolotto.com> domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Such action constitutes bad faith as provided by Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Compare Mission Kwa Sizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7,2000) (defining "competitor" as "…one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitor") with General Media Communications, Inc. v. Vine Ent., FA 96554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 26, 2001) (finding bad faith where a competitor of Complainant registered and used a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s PENTHOUSE mark as a pornographic web site).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

Having established all three elements under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief should be granted.

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