That website includes instructions as to how to bid for domain names. Currently, the complained of domain name leads to an Internet dead-end. Complainant, however, submits the sworn declaration of Mr. Garrett Martin, an executive of a McKinna subsidiary, to the effect that he contacted a PXP representative by phone in January 2000, in order to try to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Mr. Martin s declaration reports that the PXP representative told him that PXP would agree to the transfer of the domain name in exchange for one of McKinna s motor-yachts. The facts of this case, to the extent relevant or pertinent to the discussion and decision herein, will be further discussed below.
Registrar constitute further evidence of bad faith.
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant s contentions, or make any submission in this proceeding. Furthermore, Panelists interpreting the Policy early on determined that the WIPO Final Report on the Internet Domain Name Process of April 1999, from which the Policy is derived, also does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names. This Panel agrees with, and adopts, the principle that the trade or service marks on which a Complaint of abusive domain name registration under the Policy is made need not necessarily be registered. In the instant case, Complainant has made a strong and substantiated showing that it has made use of its marks in paid advertising going back at least four years, on the motor-yachts themselves, and in one or more websites sponsored by the Complainant or its subsidiary. Respondent s registration of the disputed domain name.