Complainant is Little Six, Inc. d/b/a Mystic Lake Casino Hotel, Prior Lake, MN, USA ("Complainant") represented by Michael L. Gannon, of Fish & Richardson, P.C., P.A.. Respondent is Internet Entertainment Group, Seattle, WA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <clubbingo.com> registered with Network Solutions, 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 Panelist in this proceeding.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

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 12, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <clubbingo.com> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 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 13, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of July 3, 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@clubbingo.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 July 9, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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.

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

A. Complainant

The <clubbingo.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s federally registered trademarks and service mark

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

Respondent’s registration and use of the <clubbingo.com> domain name was in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response was received.

Complainant, Little Six, Inc. d/b/a Mystic Lake Casino Hotel, is the wholly-owned arm and instrumentality through which the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux (Dakota) Community ("Community"), a sovereign, federally-recognized Indian tribe, conducts lawful gaming in an exercise of inherent sovereignty and in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701, et. seq., and is a corporation organized under the laws of the Community.

Complainant is the exclusive owner of five (5) federal trademark and service mark registrations for marks comprising or containing the words "CLUB BINGO" for various entertainment and casino related goods and services, as follows:

The only owner of a federal trademark or service mark registration for any mark consisting of or containing the words "CLUB BINGO" is Complainant Mystic Lake Casino. Complainant began use of the CLUB BINGO mark at least as early as 1997. The earliest of Complainant’s CLUB BINGO marks was registered on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 13, 1999.

Respondent registered the <clubbingo.com> domain name on June 17, 1998. Respondent has, in the past, offered similar gambling services as those of Complainant located at the disputed domain name. Currently, Respondent is not making any use of the <clubbingo.com> domain name.

After being contacted by Complainant on February 25, 2000, Respondent agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. After numerous failed attempts to reach Respondent to commence transfer of the <clubbingo.com> domain name, Complainant commenced this proceeding.

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.

For purposes of finding that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark, it is not necessary that Complainant’s trademark registration predate Respondent’s registration of the <clubbingo.com> domain name. Complainant’s use of the CLUB BINGO mark predated Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, despite the fact that Complainant did not obtain registration of the CLUB BINGO mark until after Respondent’s domain name registration. See Great Plains Metromall, LLC v. Creach, FA 97044 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 18, 2001) (finding that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy does not require "that a trademark be registered by a governmental authority for such rights to exist"). The ICANN dispute resolution policy is "broad in scope" in that "the reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant has rights’ means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or common law trademark or service mark rights will suffice" to support a domain name complaint under the policy. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, § 25:74.2, Vol. 4 (2000).

The <clubbingo.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s CLUB BINGO family of marks. See Little Six, Inc., v. Domain For Sale, FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that the <mysticlake.net> is plainly identical to Complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see also Amherst v. IFC Corp., FA 96768 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 3, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s domain name <customcommerce.com> is identical to Complainant’s CUSTOM COMMERCE trademark registration).

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

Respondent has failed to come forward to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in the <clubbingo.com> domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("[i]n the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint"). See Woolworths plc. v. Anderson, D2000-1113 (WIPO Oct. 10, 2000) (finding that absent evidence of preparation to use the domain name for a legitimate purpose, the burden of proof lies with the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests).

Furthermore, 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).

Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to provide gambling services, similar to those offered by Complainant, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, D2000-1571 (WIPO Jan. 15, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent diverted Complainant’s customers to his websites).

Respondent’s communication to Complainant, in which it agreed to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant, is evidence that it does not any have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the <clubbingo.com> domain name. See Marcor Intl’ v. Langevin, FA 96317 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 12, 2001) (Respondent’s willingness to transfer the domain name at issue indicates that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question); see also Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Domains For Sale, FA 96248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 18, 2001) (Respondent’s willingness to transfer the domain name at issue to Complainant, as reflected in its Response, is evidence that it has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

There is no evidence in the record, and Respondent has not come forward to establish that it is commonly known by the <clubbingo.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).

Furthermore, there is no evidence that demonstrates Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial, or fair use of the <clubbingo.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); 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 name, and that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s use of the <clubbingo.com> domain name, to offer similar gambling services as those offered by Complainant, constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) in that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s CLUB BINGO marks. See State Fair of Texas v. Granbury.com, FA 95288 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 12, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent registered the domain name <bigtex.net> to infringe on the Complainant’s good will and attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website).

Furthermore, by registering the <clubbingo.com> domain name Respondent has prevented Complainant from reflecting their mark in a corresponding domain name, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Complainant has also established proof of such infringing conduct by Respondent with respect to other domain names. See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Associates, FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names which infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com, D2000-0753 (Sept. 6, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent engaged in the practice of registering domain names containing the trademarks of others).

Bad faith is further evidenced by the fact that Respondent previously agreed to transfer the <clubbingo.com> domain name to Complainant, but later refused to respond to Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain name. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding Respondent’s willingness to transfer and its failure to develop the site are evidence of its bad faith registration and use); see also Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s failure to submit a formal response combined with its agreement at the onset of the Complaint to transfer the disputed names satisfies all the requirements of 4(a)).

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

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

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

John J. Upchurch, Panelist

Dated: July 18, 2001