(i) Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to redirect an internet user to a DomainSponser.com generated website containing nothing more than links to other websites is not use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services;

(ii) Respondent’s website is devoid of any indication that Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name; and

(iii) Respondent, by participating in a revenue program whereby it receives a referral fee for redirecting internet users to other websites, is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers, or to tarnish the mark at issue.

B.2 Discussion

(i) Respondent Does Not Use the Domain Name in Connection with a Bona Fide Offering of Goods and Services

With respect to the first factor, previous panels have held that use of a domain name that merely offers links to other websites is not a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to the Policy 4(c)(i). See e.g., Southern Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Southern LINC v. Henry Chan, WIPO Case No. D2004-0214 (May 10, 2004). Complainant has shown that the Domain Name is used by Respondent to direct internet users to a webpage that contains only (1) links to other internet web pages, and (2) an offer to “Inquire about this domain.”

The Panel thus holds that Complainant has made a sufficient showing that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

(ii) Respondent is Not Commonly Known by the Domain Name

That Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names is sufficiently established by the lack of any bone fide offering of goods or services in connection with the Domain Name, and by the content of Respondent’s website at “www.orderyourdomains.com” which indicates that the entity that holds the registration for the Domain Name is engaged in offering “wholesale domain services” and is known by the name Order Your Domains.

The Panel thus holds that Complainant has made a sufficient showing that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names.

(iii) Respondent is Not Making a Noncommercial or Fair Use of the Domain Name Without Intent for Commercial Gain

Complainant has shown that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name directs internet users to a DomainSponser.com generated web page containing links to other web pages, and that DomainSponser.com is a revenue program that generates income to domain holders for their “parked” domains.

The Panel thus holds that Complainant has made a sufficient showing that Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that by virtue of (i) through (iii) above Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and that the burden properly shifts to Respondent to rebut such showing.

(iv) Respondent’s Failure to Rebut Complainant’s Prima Facie Showing

In its Response on this issue, Respondent argues: (a) that such “parking” of a domain name is typical; and (b) that Respondent had engaged in research with respect to obtaining an occupational license as a contractor under an emergency ordinance in connection with the public crisis arising from hurricane Katrina.

Under the facts of the instant matter, Respondent’s positions are insufficient to rebut Complainant’s showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. That Respondent considers its use of the Domain Name to be typical does nothing to establish such use as a bona fide offering of goods and services under the Policy. Separately, Respondent has offered nothing to support its implied assertion that its inquiry concerning contractor licensing under an emergency ordinance enacted in connection with hurricane Katrina bore any relation to its use of the Domain Name. Under such circumstances, Respondent’s offering of goods or services cannot be deemed bona fide under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

Respondent does not dispute that it is not commonly known by the Domain Name and does not assert that its use of the Domain Name is a noncommercial or fair use.

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has established Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that Complainant has thus satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, registration and use in bad faith is properly evidenced by circumstances indicating the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant or its competitor for valuable consideration in excess of costs related to the domain name. Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). Here, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is limited to directing internet users to a web page containing revenue generating links to other web pages offering home repair services. Additionally, such web page included a link inviting the public to “Inquire about this domain.” The Panel finds such use to be primarily a rental to the Complainant’s competitors, and/or a thinly veiled solicitation of offers to purchase the Domain Name, and thus a bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

Respondent’s relevant arguments against a finding of bad faith registration and use lie chiefly in its assertions that the owner of Order Your Domains also owns, as its main company, a construction business, incorporated in the State of Georgia, with a solid history of actual in-house construction. Even assuming arguendo that Respondent’s relevant exhibits established such assertions as fact, the Domain Name was not registered in the name of the alleged construction business, rather it is registered in the name of Order Your Domains, a self described wholesale domain services company. Respondent’s arguments in this regard, therefore, are insufficient to overcome the evidence indicating bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has established Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name and has thus satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(iii).

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <homerepairconnection.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Maxim H. Waldbaum
Sole Panelist

Dated: January 19, 2006