Complainant is Bass Pro Trademarks, LLC, Springfield, MO ("Complainant") represented by Michelle Nahon Leonard, of Greene & Curtis LLP. Respondent is Bass Pros Hop Russia, Moscow, Russia ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <bassproshop.com>, registered with Bulkregister.

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 September 17, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 19, 2001.

On September 19, 2001, Bulkregister confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <bassproshop.com> is registered with Bulkregister and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister 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 September 21, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 11, 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@bassproshop.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 October 18, 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

Complainant contends that the <bassproshop.com> domain name is identical and confusingly similar to its federally registered BASS PRO SHOPS marks.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <bassproshop.com> domain name.

Respondent registered and used the <bassproshop.com> domain name in bad faith by linking the disputed domain name to a website offering gambling services.

B. Respondent

No response was received.

Complainant is the owner of numerous federal, state, and internationally registered trademarks and service marks containing the Complainant’s BASS PRO SHOPS marks Complainant has licensed Bass Pro Outdoors Online, LLC to use Complainant’s marks in the operation of the Bass Pro Outdoors Online, LLC websites.

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 24, 2000. Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use its marks in any manner. At the time of Complainant’s filing, Respondent linked the disputed domain name to a website offering gambling and web-based shopping services.

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.

Complainant has established rights in its BASS PRO SHOPS marks through its numerous U.S. and international registrations. For purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), it is not necessary that Complainant have registered its mark in the same jurisdiction as Respondent. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Telepathy Inc., D2001-0217 (WIPO May 7, 2001) (finding that the Policy does not require that the mark be registered in the country in which a Respondent operates. It is sufficient that a Complainant can demonstrate a mark in some jurisdiction).

Furthermore, the <bassproshop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BASS PRO SHOPS mark, as the domain name merely deletes the letter "s" from a portion of Complainant’s mark, resulting in a singular derivation of the word "shop." The deletion of a letter has been held to make a disputed domain name confusingly similar to a corresponding mark in which a Complainant has rights. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter "s" from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark).

Respondent has failed to come forward to assert that it has rights and legitimate interests in respect to the <bassproshop.com> domain name. It is well established that a Respondent’s failure to respond permits the Panel to accept all allegations of Complainant as true, and is evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect to a disputed domain name. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009, (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint"); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name because the Respondent never submitted a response nor provided the panel with evidence to suggest otherwise).

Furthermore, it is not a legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website which provides gambling services, as well as competing shopping services. See Vapor Blast Mfg. Co. v. R & S Tech., Inc., FA 96577 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s commercial use of the domain name to confuse and divert Internet traffic is not a legitimate use of the domain name).

The fact that Respondent’s contact information contains the words "Bass Pros Hop," is not sufficient to establish that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Albertson's Inc. v. Colima Medical Center, FA 97699 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s creation of a web page titled "Savond Rugs Store" is not sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, where Complainant’s mark was SAV-ON DRUG).

The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied, and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <bassproshop.com> domain name.

Respondent’s registration and use of the <bassproshop.com> domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii), as Respondent has registered a domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, and Complainant has sufficiently established a pattern of such infringing registrations by Respondent. See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assoc., 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).

Respondent’s registration and use of the <bassproshop.com> domain name to redirect Internet users to a web-based shopping site selling competing goods as those offered by Complainant, is evidence of bad faith. See Identigene, Inc. v. Genetest Lab., D2000-1100 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent's use of the domain name at issue to resolve to a website where similar services are offered to Internet users is likely to confuse the user into believing that Complainant is the source of or is sponsoring the services offered at the site).

Furthermore, Respondent’s redirection of Internet users to a website offering gambling services, assumedly for commercial gain, is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(b)(iv). See Mars, Inc. v. Double Down Magazine, D2000-1644 (WIPO Jan. 24, 2001) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where Respondent linked the domain name <marssmusic.com>, which is identical to Complainant’s mark, to a gambling website).

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 <bassproshop.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.