The City of Providence in Providence, RI, USA; and the Providence Police Department (“Complainant”), just was awarded the domain name providencepolice.com a domain that it used to own, and was won in a NameJet.com Auction back in  July 15, 2012.

The panel rejected the argument of the domain holder that PROVIDENCE POLICE is not a registered trademark.”

Here are the facts and findings of the one member UDRP panel:

“Complainant initially owned the disputed domain name beginning in February 29, 2000, but when there was an oversight in the registration process, Respondent took advantage of the lapse and registered the domain name as his own;

• Respondent has been involved in similar acts of bad faith registration in the past and in support of this Complainant submitted a newspaper report of Respondent’s opportunistic registration of the <Bastille-Linux.org> domain name;

• Respondent chose a domain name that was identical with the longstanding and distinctive PROVIDENCE POLICE mark and should have been aware that the disputed domain name corresponded with the mark because there is no other organization, entity or person in the world that is called, named or otherwise referred to as the Providence Police Department.

“Complainant has common law rights in the PROVIDENCE POLICE mark as a result of its exclusive and continuous use of the mark since 1864.

The contested domain name was registered by Complainant at least ten years before Respondent registered exactly the same domain name.

“The Panel finds that the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name identifies “1903 60th Place E,” as the registrant, therefore Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy.”

“Complainant submitted sufficient evidence to support its contention that the disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a gambling and blackjack tutorial website, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name therefore the Panel finds that Respondent has shown no rights or legitimate interests according to Policy ”

“The Panel finds that Complainant submitted sufficient evidence to show that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ”