The Complainant is Cable News Network, LP, LLLP, Atlanta, GA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Christopher B. Roblyer, of Alston & Bird, LLP. The Respondent is Saleh Hasburn Money Funding, Monterey Park, CA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "cnnmoney.com" registered with DomainPeople, Inc.

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

Henry W. Blizzard Jr. as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on March 8, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 12, 2001.

On March 15, 2001, DomainPeople, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "cnnmoney.com" is registered with DomainPeople, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DomainPeople, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DomainPeople, 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 March 15, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of April 4, 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@cnnmoney.com by e-mail.

A timely response was received and determined to be complete on April 4, 2001.

On April 10, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed Henry W. Blizzard Jr, as Panelist.

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

Complainant, Cable News Network a.k.a. CNN, owns the registered mark CNN, which it has used for more than twenty years in satellite and cable broadcasting world-wide. It also used its CNNFN mark for more than five years to identify its financial news and information net work. These marks are recognized throughout the world. In January of this year, Complainant announced that it intended to stop using the CNNFN mark for its financial news network, and would begin using the mark, CNNMONEY. At about the same time, Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that the domain name in question is identical to its new mark CNNMONEY. It is also contended that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark CNN because it is comprised of Complainant’s mark and a generic term. Complainant alleges that the Respondent has shown no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed name in that it is not licensed or authorized to use the marks nor is Respondent commonly known by the domain name in dispute. The Respondent is alleged to be acting in bad faith by offering to sell the disputed domain name for $15,000 or otherwise to the highest bidder at auction. Also, bad faith is alleged because Respondent could not conceivably have registered this domain name without knowing of Complainant’s right to these marks. Bad faith is also alleged in that Respondent is said to have registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s well known mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s web site.

B. Respondent

Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks because the Complainant cannot maintain exclusive rights over letters of the alphabet, unless the letters spell out a discernible and pronounceable word. Respondent alleges that it has never utilized Complainant’s service mark, the stylized CNN and has not used CNNMONEY.com in any fashion other than simple capital letters and, only in its entirety. The marks of Complainant being stylized, it is contended, means the domain name is not confusingly similar. Respondent claims that it used the disputed domain name in connection with its loan brokering business, which has existed since 1974. Respondent claims its use of the domain name in question is for an entirely different business use than that made by the Complainant. Respondent denies it has acted in bad faith, and alleges that the registration of it was in good faith and made for a legitimate non-commercial and non-infringing purpose.

The Panel received information, some of which was and some of which was not submitted in accordance with the rules and did consider that material.

The domain name in question is identical to the Complainant’s mark CNNMONEY. It is confusingly similar to its mark CNN, in that there is added only one generic term. The Respondent has demonstrated no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use these names nor has it ever been commonly known by these marks. The Respondent has acted in bad faith by offering to sell the domain name in question in excess of the out of pocket expenses it incurred in the registration of the domain name. Also, bad faith is shown in that Respondent chose to register a well known mark with which it had no connection or right, one which any reasonable person would know existed, but would also create confusion in the mind of the public as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement by the Complainant.

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 domain name in question uses the exact same name as the mark of the Complainant CNNMONEY and is confusingly similar to the CNN mark in that it uses that mark and adds only the generic term"money". Therefore the domain name is identical and confusingly similar to marks owned and used by the Complainant. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v Inja, Kil, D2000-1409(WIPO Dec. 9 2000) See also AXA China region Limited v Kannet Ltd., D2000-1377(WIPO Nov 29, 2000). It is not important whether the services offered by the Respondent are likely to be confused with the services offered by CNN. The standard to be used under the "policy" is not whether the services are similar but whether the domain name is similar to the mark. See ICANN Policy 4 (a) i.

The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. It has no affiliation with the Complainant nor is Respondent authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s marks. The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question and its registration coincides with Complainants announced plan to use this mark. See Compagnie de Sain Gobain v Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020(WIPO Mar. 14, 2000). See also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-043(WIPO June 27, 2000)

Under the "Policy" an offer to sell the domain name for a sum in excess of out of pocket expenses is recognized as an act of bad faith. The Respondent has offered this domain name for sale in such a manner and thus, bad faith is shown. See World Wrestling Fed’s Entertainment Inc. v. Bosman, D0099-001(WIPO Jan. 14, 2000). The Complainant having used the mark CNN for many years worldwide, the Respondent had to know of Complainant’s marks at the time of registration. The act of registering the mark with such knowledge would lead a person to know that persons seeing the domain name would be likely to believe that there was an affiliation with the Complainant when in fact such an affiliation did not exist. The obvious result is confusion and deception to the public. See Kraft Foods (Norway) v Wide, D2000-0911(WIPO Sept. 23, 2000). See also reuters Ltd. v. Teltrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471(WIPO Sept. 8, 2000)

Based upon the findings and discussion and pursuant to Rule 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform domain name Dispute Policy, it is decided as follows: the relief requested by Complainant is granted. The undersigned directs that the domain name "cnnmoney.com" registered to Money Funding be transferred to Complainant, Cable News Network, LP,LLLP.