In the recent decision of Futuredontics Inc. v. 1-800 Domain Names, LLC (WIPO D2009-0296, May 31, 2009) a single member Panel was faced with a dispute over the domain www.1-800-dentist.com. Complainant operates a dentist referral and information business since 1985, and maintains a web site at www.1800dentist.com. Complainant has trademark registrations for “1-800-DENTIST” and “1800DENTIST” in connection with those services. Respondent did not answer the Complaint.

The Panel noted that paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following: 1) that the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and 2) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and 3) that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

In addressing the first element, whether the domain was identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, the Panel simply found the domain to be identical or confusingly similar without any additional factual support or explanation. Instead the Panel just cited numerous prior domain dispute decisions as support.

Moving to the second prong, whether Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain, the Panel noted that Respondent failed to challenge or argue for his rights, was not commonly known by the disputed domain, and had not acquired any trademark rights. As a result, the Panel found Complainant satisfied this element.

The Panel spent most of the decision discussing the final element, whether the disputed domain was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel explained:

There is also proof in the record that Respondent may have provided false or misleading information in connection with the registration of the domain name <1-800-dentist.com>, which is a further indicia of bad faith. There is also proof in the record that Respondent has falsely linked the website to which the domain name <1-800-dentist.com> resolves to alternating websites, both of which falsely imply some connection between that website and the services of Complainant. This is bad faith. The record suggests that on certain days Respondent causes the website to direct consumers to Complainant’s website, while on other days Respondent will divert consumers to different websites not related to Complainant. It appears that even when Respondent directs consumers to Complainant’s website, Respondent provides advertising for businesses not associated with Complainant. Respondent’s registration of the domain name, and the use of that domain name in this fashion, prevents Complainant from fully controlling the commercial use of its trademarks and more particularly the domain name which is identical or substantially similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks. This is bad faith.

Ultimately, the Panel found that Complainant proved all three ICANN UDRP elements and agreed to TRANSFER the disputed domain.