Complainant is Michael Andretti, Nazareth, PA ("Complainant") represented by Eric D. Scheible. Respondent is Alberta Hot Rods, High Prairie, AB, Canada ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <michaelandretti.com>, registered with CORE.

On October 1, 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 Panelist 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 August 16, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 20, 2001.

On August 22, 2001, CORE confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <michaelandretti.com> is registered with CORE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CORE has verified that Respondent is bound by the CORE 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 August 23, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 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@michaelandretti.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 Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant

The <michaelandretti.com> domain name is identical to the complainant’s trademark.

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <michaelandretti.com> domain name.

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

B. Respondent

No response was received.

Complainant is a well-known automobile racecar driver named Michael Andretti. As this is the Respondent’s famous name, he has common law trademark rights as well as registered trademark rights to MICHAEL ANDRETTI.

Respondent registered the <michaelandretti.com> domain name on September 16, 1996. Since then Respondent has used the website as a link to Respondent’s own commercial website at <celebrity1000.com>.

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 common law trademark rights in his name, as he is a well-known automobile racecar driver. See Roberts v. Boyd, D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (finding that the name "Julia Roberts" has sufficient secondary association with the Complainant that common law trademark rights exist); see also Jagger v. Hammerton, FA 95261 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (Complainant held common law trademark rights in his famous name MICK JAGGER)

Further, because the <michaelandretti.com> domain name uses Complainant’s name in its entirety, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s name. See Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (finding Respondent’s domain name, <karlalbrecht.com>, identical to Complainant’s common law mark); see also Victoria’s Secret at al v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that the <bodybyvictoria.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s BODY BY VICTORIA mark). Therefore, the Respondent has a domain name that is identical to a trademark in which Respondent has rights.

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

First, Respondent has failed to come forward to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in the <michaelandretti.com> domain name. See Talk City v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint").

Second, there is a presumption that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to a disputed domain name where 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).

Third, Respondent was not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i). Once Internet users have accessed <michaelandretti.com>, they are transported to Respondent's commercial website <celebrity1000.com>. Respondent's commercial site and its association with the disputed domain name does not offer any bona fide authorized goods or services. See Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s trademarks); 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).

Fourth, Respondent has not demonstrated that it is commonly known by the <michaelandretti.com> domain name pursuant to Policy 4 (c)(ii). Respondent's commercial site is <celebrity1000.com>. This name bears no relation to the Complainant's name and therefore, does not justify use of the Complainant's name MICHAEL ANDRETTI. 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).

Finally, there is no evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii). Respondent uses the disputed domain name as a way to confuse Internet users into believing that they are accessing a site that is either sponsored or affiliated with the Complainant. Instead, the domain name is used as a portal to Respondent's unrelated commercial website <celebrity1000.com>. See Kasparov v. American Computer Co., FA 94644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding no legitimate interests when Respondent used Complainant's name as a portal to a web site which, without permission, associated the Complainant as an endorser of Respondent's causes); see also 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).

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that Policy 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent's practice indicates that Respondent has registered this site in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv). Respondent registered <michaelandretti.com> with the intention of gaining commercially by attracting Internet users that confuse the site as affiliated, or sponsored by Complainant. See Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Natale FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (The Respondent intentionally registered a domain name that uses the Complainant’s name. "There may be circumstances where such a registration could be done in good faith, but absent such evidence, the Panel can only conclude that the registration was done in bad faith."); 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).

In addition, Respondent’s failure to respond to the complaint demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith intent in registering the domain name. See Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) ("The Panel assumes that if the Respondent had a good faith intent in registration and use of the domain name, it would have responded either to Complainant’s letter and/or the Complaint, or actually used the domain name in some good manner").

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 <michaelandretti.com> domain name be transferred from the Respondent to Complainant.