The Complainant is METRO Dienstleistungs Holding GmbH, of Leonhard-Tietz-Strasse 1, DE-50676 Köln, Germany.

Represented by Eva Kessler, Corporate Counsel, of METRO AG, Schlueterstrasse 41, DE-40235, Duesseldorf, Germany.

The Respondent is Legal Services, of 101 Chambers Street, NY 10007-1805, New York, United States of America.

Respondent is not represented.

The domain name with which this dispute is concerned is: <dreaming.biz>.

The Registrar with which the domain name is currently registered is Intercosmos Media Group, Inc, d/b/a directNIC.com., United States of America.

3.1 This is a proceeding under the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy and Rules ("STOP") for the .Biz domain. Complainant having duly filed notice of an IP claim and intent to file a STOP Complaint, the Complaint was filed with the WIPO Center ("the Center") on April 22, 2002, by e-mail, and on April 25, 2002, in hard copy. Following issue by the Center of a Notice of Complaint Deficiency an amendment to the Complaint was filed on June 3, 2002.

3.2 On May 29, 2002, and June 5, 2002, the Center checked the Complaint for formal compliance with STOP and the STOP Rules.

3.3 The Center, having determined that all formal requirements had been met, sent the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding on June 6, 2002, by courier and by e-mail to Respondent and to the Administrative, Technical and Billing Contact for the domain name.

3.4 The communication of the Complaint satisfies the provisions of Rule 2(a) of the STOP Rules and the courier and e-mail deliveries to Respondent were effective. The Panel is satisfied that Respondent received due notice of the Complaint.

3.5 The Administrative Proceeding commenced on June 6, 2002, and the Response was due on June 26, 2002.

3.6 No Response was received and Notification of Respondent Default was issued on June 28, 2002.

3.7 Sole Panelist, Desmond J. Ryan, having filed the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the Panel was appointed on July 12, 2002.

4.1 The domain name was registered with the registrar in question, on March 27, 2002.

4.2 Complainant is a German company. It states that it belongs to the "Metro Group". Complainant is the complainant in co-pending disputes.

4.3 The only information available on the record with respect to Complainant or its business is that contained in the statement of "Factual and Legal Grounds" set out in the Complaint. That statement is as follows:

5.1 This dispute is one to which the STOP applies. Complainant duly registered an IP claim and duly filed the Complaint on receipt of notice of the registration of the domain name. As applicant for the domain name Respondent would have received notice of Complainant’s IP claim and details of its trademarks.

5.2 To succeed in its Complaint, Complainant must show that each of the conditions of paragraph 4(a) of the STOP are satisfied, namely that:

(i) the domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

6.1 Complainant's contentions are as set out in the statement quoted in paragraph 4.3 above.

6.2 No Response was filed

7.1 Complainant's trademark registrations are for the word "dreaming." The Panel finds that the domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

7.2 In these proceedings the onus is on Complainant to show that each of the requirements of para. 4(a) of STOP is satisfied. The facts as to whether or not a respondent has any rights or legitimate interest in a domain name are ordinarily principally within the knowledge of the respondent. A complainant can often discharge the onus of showing lack of right or legitimate interest by setting up a prima facie case and reverting the onus of rebuttal of that prima facie showing to the respondent. The onus proof is thereby reversed, notwithstanding the fact that by para. 4(a) the burden of proof is placed upon the complainant. The fact remains however, that the complainant must at least make some prima facie showing. All that Complainant has done here is to state that "Complainant must assume that the Respondent has no rights to the trademark "dreaming"." There is no basis given for that assumption. No searches appear to have been carried out, no enquiries made, and no correspondence entered into between Complainant and Respondent. Complainant's mere assertion of an unsupported assumption is not enough to constitute a prima facie showing. Absent such prima facie showing, no onus of rebuttal is placed on Respondent. Though Respondent's failure to respond would normally be a powerful factor in Complainant's favour, Complainant here has failed to make even a prima facie showing.

7.3 The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy ground 4(a)(ii) of STOP, and the Complaint must therefore fail.

7.4 The Complainant having failed under para. 4(a)(2), it is unnecessary to consider questions of bad faith. The Panel notes however, that Complainant has produced no evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case, and has again relied on mere assertion, that its trademark is "well known in Germany and all over the world". Complainant has produced no evidence to support this assertion, and in particular, no evidence as to why a trademark consisting of the common English word "dreaming" would be likely to be known to the American-domiciled Respondent. The fact that Respondent would have received a notice of Complainant's IP claim is not, alone, sufficient to establish the bad faith requirement, particularly, as here, the trademark is a common English word, registered only in jurisdictions outside the United States and in respect of a limited range of goods, (see Network Associates Technology, Inc v. Lenow International, Inc, WIPO Case DBIZ2001-00043).

7.5 The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to show registration or use of the domain name in bad faith.

8.1 Complainant having failed to satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(a)(iii) of STOP, the Complaint is dismissed.