Complainant is Prisma Presse, a company of French law, with registered offices at 6 rue Daru, 75008 Paris, France.

Respondent is Orlik Software Panoramastrasse 40-42 Wiesbaden 65199, Germany.

The disputed domain name is <management.biz>. The Registrar with which the domain name is registered is Key-Systems GmbH, Saarpfalz-Park Building 7 - 66450 Bexbach, Germany.

The Complaint was submitted for decision in accordance with the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy ("STOP Policy") for .BIZ, adopted by NeuLevel, Inc. and approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on April 27, 2002, by e-mail, and on April 30, 2002, in hard copy, in accordance with the Rules for the STOP Policy, adopted by NeuLevel, Inc. and approved by ICANN , (the "STOP Rules"), and the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") Supplemental Rules for the STOP Policy (the "Center's Supplemental STOP Rules").

On May 8, 2002, the Center acknowledged receipt of the Complaint and on June 3, 2002, after having verified the compliance with the requirements of the STOP Rules and the Center's Supplemental STOP Rules, the Center sent the Notification of STOP Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceedings to the Respondent (including the domain name registrant, administrative contact, technical contact, zone contact and billing contact), with copy to the Complainant, the Registrar and the ICANN.

The Respondent failed to submit its Response within the requested deadline and therefore, on July 10, 2002, the Center issued a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 14, 2002, Mr. Andreas Orlik, Administrative, Billing and Technical Contact for the domain name at issue, sent an e-mail to the Center, acknowledging receipt of the Notification of Respondent Default, informing the Center that he had received an IP Claim Conflict Notice on March 15, 2002, and that he had confirmed on the website of Neulevel that he wanted to proceed in registering the domain name because he had "a Management Consultancy" and needed the disputed domain name for his business presentation. In the same e-mail, Mr. Orlik informed the Center that he did not get any other message until the Notification of Respondent Default and asked what he had to do to keep the domain name <management.biz>. On July 16, 2002, the Center replied to Mr. Orlik's e-mail that "the documents were sent to [him] by e-mail to the same address as the Notification of Default (...) on June 3, 2002". No further correspondence between the Center and Respondent has been sent to the Panel. Therefore, the Panel assumes that Respondent failed to reply to the Center’s e-mail of July 16, 2002, and that there is no further communication between the Center and Respondent.

On July 29, 2002, the Center invited the undersigned to serve as Panelist in this administrative proceeding and, on the same date, the Panel submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence. In accordance with Paragraph 15 of the STOP Rules, the Panel's decision must be forwarded to the Center by August 12, 2002.

The Panel, after having verified all documents submitted by the Center, agrees with the Center's assessment concerning the Complaint’s compliance with the formal requirements, set forth by the STOP Policy and the STOP Rules, and the Center's Supplemental STOP Rules, including the fact that the payment was properly made, and that the Complaint was properly notified in accordance with the STOP Rules, Paragraph 2(a). In this regard the Panel finds that, although the Respondent states that it never received any other message apart from the IP Conflict Notice and the Notification of Respondent's Default, by this implying that it never received the notification of the Complaint, nothing in the Case File seems to confirm this lack of receipt. Indeed, the notification of the STOP Complaint and the Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was sent by the Center at the same e-mail address where the Notification of Respondent's Default was sent, which is the address appearing in the .BIZ Registry Whois Data. This address proved to be valid as the Respondent received the Notification of Respondent's Default, and the message enclosing the Notification of the Complaint and the Commencement of Administrative Proceeding did not resolve in an undeliverable message.

In addition to the foregoing, the Panel finds that in compliance with Para. 11 of the STOP Rules, since the Parties have not agreed otherwise, the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, i.e., English.

The Complainant in this Administrative Proceeding is Prisma Presse, a company of French law (commercial partnership), with a share capital of euro 3 048 980, registered with the Paris registry of commerce and companies under N° B 318 826 187, having its registered offices at 6 rue Daru, 75008 Paris, France.

The domain name <management.biz> was registered on March 27, 2002, in the name of Orlik Software of Wiesbaden, Germany.

The Complainant is the owner of several MANAGEMENT formative trademarks. In particular, the trademarks upon which the Complaint is based are the following:

- MANAGEMENT N° 94544132, French trademark registered on November, 10, 1994, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT (with device) N° 99815094, French trademark registered on September 24, 1999, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT (with device) N° 99815092, French trademark registered on September 24, 1999, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;

- E MANAGEMENT (with device) N° d003030501, French trademark registered on May, 19, 2000, in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41;

The Complainant also owns the following trademarks including the word "management":

- IDEES MANAGEMENT N° 94536358, French trademark registered on September 16, 1994, in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT ET ENTREPRISES N° 94538285, French trademark registered on September 30, 1994,in classes 9 and 16;

- CAPITAL PRESENTE MANAGEMENT N°94549514, French trademark registered on December 16, 1994, in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41;

- CAPITAL MANAGEMENT N° 94549511, French trademark registered on December 16, 1994, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41;

- L’ESSENTIEL DU MANAGEMENT N° 94549510, French trademark registered on December 16, 1994, in classes 9 and 16;

- IMPACT MANAGEMENT N° 94549513, French trademark registered on December 16, 1994, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT FOCUS N° 94549512, French trademark registered on December 16, 1994, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41;

- L’ESSENTIEL DU MANAGEMENT (with color device), N° 95556792, French trademark registered on February 6, 1995, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT ARGENT N° 95563110, French trademark registered on March 16, 1995, in classes 9, 16, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT ARGENT (with color device) N° 95563111, French trademark registered on March 16, 1995, in classes 9, 16, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT PLACEMENTS N° 95563108, French trademark registered on March 16, 1995, in classes 9, 16, 38 and 41;

- MANAGEMENT PLACEMENTS (with device) N° 95563109, French trademark registered on March 16, 1995, in classes 9, 16, 38 and 41;

- L’ENCYCLOPEDIE PRATIQUE DU MANAGEMENT (with color device) N° 96643371, French trademark registered on September 27, 1996, in classes 16, 35 and 41;

- LE CLUB L’ESSENTIEL DU MANAGEMENT (with device) n° 96653288, French trademark registered on December 2, 1996, in classes 16, 35 and 41.

According to the Complaint, the MANAGEMENT trademarks are used as the title of a renown magazine named "MANAGEMENT" which is well-known also in Europe. This magazine is published in France and due to the quality of its articles, it has a strong reputation within the public, with approximately 90,000 copies sold per month.

The Complainant also owns the following management domain names: <management.fr>; <management.info>; <management-mag.com>; <management.presse.fr>; <management.tm.fr>; <management-mag.net>; <management-mag.org>; <managers.com.fr>. The Complainant states that it invested several millions French Francs in the Internet to develop its activity under its trademarks "MANAGEMENT".

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <management.biz> is identical to the various MANAGEMENT trademarks in the Complainant's name, which were listed under the Factual Background.

The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the domain name <management.biz> due to the fact that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor is in any way linked to it or authorized to use Complainant’s trademarks. Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the Respondent does not own any MANAGEMENT formative trademark, and the Complainant is the only owner of the trademarks listed above and the sole entity authorized to use these trademarks.

The Complainant also contends that the domain name <management.biz> was registered in bad faith due to the fact that the Complainant's Management magazine is renown, and that, for this reason, the Respondent could not ignore its existence.

Moreover, according to the Complaint, "prior any notice to the domain name registrant of the dispute, there is no evidence of the registrant’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services".

Finally, the Complainant states that "nothing indicates that the domain name registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name".

The Respondent failed to submit any Response.

Under Para. 4(a) of the STOP Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of following three elements are present: (1) the domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith.

1) The Panel believes that the domain name <management.biz> is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. In particular, among the trademarks cited by the Complainant and enclosed to the Complaint, the French registration No. 9544132 of November 10, 1994, refers to a MANAGEMENT word mark which is certainly identical to the domain name at issue.

In view of the fact that the Complainant is the owner of at least one trademark identical to the domain name <management.biz>, the Panel believes that it is unnecessary to compare all the other trademarks listed in the Complaint with the domain name <management.biz>, so as to determine whether or not they should be considered identical to it.

Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first condition is met.

2) The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, and is, in no way, authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the Respondent does not own any trademark comprising the word "MANAGEMENT". Accordingly, the Complainant should be considered the sole owner of the MANAGEMENT trademarks listed in the Complaint, and is the only one authorized to use said trademarks. In the light of all the aforesaid considerations, according to the Complainant, the Respondent should be deemed to have no rights nor legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at stake.

The Panel notes that none of the aforesaid statements is supported by evidence. In particular, the Complainant did not supply any copy of the search results carried out to verify whether or not the Respondent was the owner of any MANAGEMENT trademark.

However, all the aforesaid statements are uncontested. Thus, in view of the particular difficulty of proving a negative fact, the Panel takes the view that the aforesaid statements should at least be considered a prima facie evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <management.biz>.

The Respondent failed to challenge such prima facie evidence, by submitting arguments in favour of its rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <management.biz>. In the light of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that also the second condition is met.

3) According to the Complainant, the Respondent registered the domain name <management.biz> in bad faith. No reference is made to a possible use of the domain name in bad faith. In view of the fact that according to Para. 4(a) iii. of the STOP Policy, the Complainant must only prove the bad faith in the registration or the use of the disputed domain name, and considering that the Complainant did not mention any possible use in bad faith of such domain name, the Panel concludes that there is no use, or no use in bad faith of the domain name <management.biz>, and will only evaluate whether or not the Complainant may be considered to have proved Respondent’s registration in bad faith of said domain name.

The Complainant grounds the Respondent’s bad faith of the domain name <management.biz> upon the fact that "MANAGEMENT is a notorious magazine protected by the trademarks before mentioned. The Respondent cannot ignore the existence of the MANAGEMENT magazine which has a strong reputation, and is well-known in Europe. Therefore the domain name "management.biz" has been registered in bad faith. In the Panel's view, the aforesaid statements should be considered as mere allegations, not supported by adequate evidence.

From the evidence enclosed to the Complaint it seems to the Panel that the Management magazine might be considered a popular magazine in France, at least among its public of reference. The evidence provided for by the Complainant shows that the Management magazine "is read by 480,000 executives and supervisors" (Annex E), that the number of copies sold per month in the year 2001 was approximately equal to 90,000 (Annex D), and that the amount of advertising pages sold in the year 1999/ 2000 was equal to 379 (Annex E).

On the contrary, in the Panel's view, the Complainant's statement that "the Management magazine is well-known in Europe and that therefore the Respondent registered the domain name <management.biz> in bad faith" has not been proved. From the documents filed by the Complainant it results that the number of copies of the Management magazine circulating per month outside France (which does not necessarily entail that these copies circulate in Europe, or only in Europe), was approximately 8,450, in the year 1999/ 2000 (Exhibit E). In the Panel’s view, this figure does not appear to support the Complainant’s allegation that the Management magazine is "well-known in Europe".

With specific regard to Germany, which is the country where the Respondent is located, it appears (Exhibit E), that the Complainant (or its group) publishes several magazines in this country, but not the Management magazine. Furthermore, the cover page of the Management magazine makes express mention to the countries where the Management magazine may be bought, with the relevant purchase prices. Germany is not included among these countries, and among the European countries only Spain, Grece, Belgium, Switzerland and Luxembourg are listed.

In the light of the foregoing, the Panel believes that the Complainant failed to prove the renown of the Management magazine in Europe or at least in Germany, which is the country where the Respondent is located. However, the Panel further believes that even where the Complainant had been capable of proving the renown of the Management magazine in Europe or in Germany, such renown would not have been considered sufficient to lead to the automatic conclusion that the registration of the domain name <management.biz> occurred in bad faith.

In fact, the word "management" is an English word which may be adopted in all business fields as it means "the conducting or supervising of something" or "the collective body of those who manage or direct an enterprise" (Merriam's Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition). It is commonly known that several English business terms are frequently used also in foreign countries and so has happened with "management" which became part of the German language already long time ago, as it is demonstrated by the fact that this term is inserted in the German dictionary, published by Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag, 1970 Edition, and is defined as "Leitung eines Unternehmens", meaning in English: "the direction of a company / undertaking".

It is the Panel’s belief that in a situation where the disputed domain name not only coincides with the Complainant’s trademark, but also with a generic name which belongs to the language of the Respondent’s country, or at least is of common use in this country, in order to consider that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, the Complainant’s proof must be thoroughly circumstantiated and incontrovertible. More specifically, in the Panel’s view, the more the disputed domain name coincides with a generic term which, in principle, might appeal to an unlimited number of persons/ entities for an unlimited number of reasons, the more the evidence of bad faith in the registration of the domain name must be indisputable. Accordingly, in the case at issue, the bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name cannot be merely inferred from the fact that the registrant could not ignore the existence of the Complainant’s trademark due to its renown (assuming that such a renown had been proved), or from any other implied circumstance such as those mentioned below.

The Complainant also alleges that "prior any notice to the domain name registrant of the dispute, there is no evidence of the registrant's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, nothing indicates that the domain name registrant (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name".

These circumstances coincide with those listed in Para. 4(c) ii. and iii. of the STOP Policy to demonstrate the Respondent’s rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant infers from these mere assertions which basically consist in "negative evidences" (not having made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name, not being commonly known by the domain name), that the registration of the <management.biz> domain name occurred in bad faith. However, in the Panel’s belief, for all the reasons mentioned above, the aforesaid statements which, under certain circumstances such as the Respondent’s default, might be considered sufficient to prove the lack of the Respondent’s rights to and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in a case like the one at issue - where the disputed domain name coincides with a generic term - must be considered insufficient to prove that the domain name <management.biz> was registered in bad faith.

In view of the foregoing, the Panel believes that the Complainant failed to prove that the domain name <management.biz> was registered in bad faith.

The Complainant having failed to satisfy the requirement under Para. 4(a) iii., the Complaint is dismissed.