Complainant is Dialpad Communications, Inc., Santa Clara, CA ("Complainant") represented by Kevin Chou and Miguel Alcántar, of Dialpad Communications, Inc. Respondent is Kihyun Kim Kihyun Tech, Inc., Seoul, KR ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <dialpadonline.com> registered with Netpia.com, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 17, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 20, 2001.

On August 21, 2001, Netpia.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <dialpadonline.com> is registered with Netpia.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Netpia.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Netpia.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 August 23, 2001, a Korean language 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@dialpadonline.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 September 24, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson 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.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Korean language Commencement Notification and Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.

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

A. Complainant makes the following allegations:

B. Respondent did not file a response in this proceeding.

Complainant has built a Voice over IP (VoIP) platform enabling the company to be a leading global provider of VoIP solutions for carriers, businesses and consumers.

Complainant is the holder of United States trademark application Number 75/818259, filed October 7, 1999, and Korean trademark registration Number 9875/2000, filed April 4, 2000. Complainant also owns several other pending and registered trademarks for the DIALPAD mark.

On September 15, 2000, Respondent originally registered <dialpadonline.com> through Domainsarefree.com, which has an English language Registration Agreement. On May 29, 2001 and June 14, 2001, Complainant sent a first and second cease and desist letter to Respondent, requesting the transfer of <dialpadonline.com> to Complainant and offering to compensate the Respondent for the cost of the original registration fee. On June 25, 2001, Respondent changed the registrar from Domainsarefree.com to Netpia.com, which has a Korean language Registration Agreement. On June 26, 2001, Complainant sent a third cease and desist letter to Respondent, again requesting the transfer of <dialpadonline.com> to Complainant and offering to compensate Respondent for the cost of the original registration fee. On July 9, 2001, Complainant sent a fourth cease and desist letter to Respondent when it became clear that Respondent was redirecting Internet users who might type www.dialpadonline.com to www.hanmir.com (registered to Korea Telecom) to Respondent’s site. This July 9, 2001 letter again requested the transfer of <dialpadonline.com> to Complainant and offered to compensate Respondent for the cost of the original registration fee.

From Respondent’s e-mail to Complainant’s Administrative Contact dated July 10, 2001, it appeared that Respondent might be ready to transfer <dialpadonline.com> and Complainant followed up with transfer instructions on July 10, 2001 via e-mail; but in an e-mail dated July 15, 2001, Respondent demanded $5,000 for the transfer of <dialpadonline.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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) 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.

Given Complainant’s pending and registered trademarks for the DIALPAD mark, Complainant has proven its rights in this mark. See Phone-N-Phone Serv. (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Shlomi (Salomon) Levi, D2000-0040 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (finding that the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s pending service mark application). The infringing domain name, <dialpadonline.com>, is merely a combination of (1) Complainant's mark, "Dialpad," (2) the term "online," and (3) the most common commercial URL suffix, ".com". The addition of a generic word, such as "online" to Complainant’s mark does not create a distinct domain name but instead creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark used to create the domain name. See Yahoo! Inc. v. Casino Yahoo, Inc., D2000-0660 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2000) (finding the domain name <casinoyahoo.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark).

Based on the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the elements required to prevail that are set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant has established rights to and legitimate interest in the mark contained in its entirety in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the infringing domain name. The domain name <dialpadonline.com> is not tied to Respondent’s natural or legal business name, trademark or any part thereof. Respondent has no other legal rights to the domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Complainant has not asked Respondent to register the domain name – <dialpadonline.com> – on behalf of Complainant. In addition, Respondent cannot claim to be commonly known by the <dialpadonline.com>, domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). E.g., Victoria’s Secret et al v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well established use of the mark).

Further, Respondent offered the domain name for sale to Complainant and the general public. Capitalizing on this domain name at Complainant’s expense is not a legitimate, bona fide, or fair use of the domain name. Therefore, Respondent cannot claim rights in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit).

The Panel finds that Complainant has established the necessary elements to prevail that are set forth in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. As stated above, Respondent demanded that Complainant pay $5,000 as a consideration for the transfer of <dialpadonline.com> from Respondent to Complainant. On its face this sum is well in excess of expected out of pocket registration costs incurred by Respondent in registering and developing the domain name and Respondent offered no proof of any such costs. It is well settled that registering and subsequently offering a confusingly similar and/or identical domain name for sale to the mark holder in excess of registration costs demonstrates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). E.g., Little Six, Inc v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that Respondent's offer to sell the domain name at issue to Complainant was evidence of bad faith).

Given the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements required to prevail under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii); Respondent registered and used the domain name in issue in bad faith.

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <dialpadonline.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist