The Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Jane A. O'Connell, Strasburger & Price LLP. The Respondent is My.com, Inc., Bellevue, WA, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "myhp.com" registered with Network Solutions.

On November 20,2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. The Panelist certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on October 20, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on October 20, 2000.

On 10/23/00, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "myhp.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís UDRP.

On October 24, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 13, 2000 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 Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@"myhp.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.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform 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 Forumís Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the domain name in dispute is confusingly similar to its trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

Complainant asserts that the activities of Respondent as complained of have caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Complainant and its business reputation and goodwill.

B. Respondent

Respondent has not provided any submissions to this Panel. As Respondent has failed to submit a response to Complaint, the Panel accepts as true all of the allegations of Complaint. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO February 29, 2000).

Complainant is the owner of numerous proprietary marks in connection with computer hardware, computer printers, computer peripherals, computer software and other related goods. Complainant owns twenty-three trademarks and service marks registered on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for marks consisting of "HP" and two additional pending trademark applications for marks consisting of "HP" (the "HP Marks"). Complainant first used the mark HP, an abbreviation of the company name, in commerce in 1941.

Respondent was founded in November 1999 "to deliver the next generation service so desperately needed by small business customers." Respondent registered with Network Solutions for the domain name "myhp.com" on December 10, 1999. In addition to "myhp.com", My.com, Inc. also registered numerous other domain names including domain names incorporating other third party trademarks such as "myplaystation.com", "myibm.com", "mydirrecttv.com", and "mypcworld.com". None of these domain names incorporating third party trademarks are currently represented by websites.

Further, the website for my.com now only advertises the sale of the domain name and provides, "We purchased the domain name my.com for an Internet startup but never used it. We now need to sell this incredible one-of-kind domain name. We are currently prepared to sell my.com for USD $1,000,000. If you are interested in the domain name my.com fee free to contact us at me@ejw.com. Serious inquires only please."

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("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.

The domain name myhp.com is merely a combination of the term "my," Complainantís HP trademark, and the common URL suffix ". com". The Panel concludes that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to the Complainantís marks based on Policy  4.a.(i). See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the Complainantís distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Walmarket Canada, D2000-0150 (WIPO May 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name, <walmartcanada.com> is confusingly similar to Complainantís famous mark).

Complainantís marks were in use for over fifty years before registration of domain name in dispute. Respondent has not offered any evidence that it has been commonly known by the domain name under Policy  4.c.(ii) or it is using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4.c.(iii). Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it to business for valuable consideration in excess of his documented out-of-pocket registration costs, which is not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Policy  4.c.(i),  4.b.(i).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name based on Policy  4.a.(ii). See The Boeing Company v. Nicola Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proved); Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc., D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that failure to provide a product or service or develop the site demonstrates that the Respondents have not established any rights or legitimate interests in the said domain name).

Respondent registered the domain name for the sole purpose of selling for profit and he never developed a website representing the domain name. Such intent constitutes bad faith registration and use. Policy  4.b.(i). See America Online, Inc. v. Netsbest, FA 93563 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent made no use of the domain name <icqguide.com> other than offering it for sale for $99,000).

Moreover, Complainant contends that the domain name was registered in bad faith due to the fact that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct by registering the multiple domain names incorporating third party trademarks to prevent the trademark owner from using those domain names. Policy  4.b.(ii). See General Electric Co. v. Forddirect.com, Inc., D2000-0394 (WIPO June 22, 2000) (finding that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct, by registering over fifty domain names such as <amazondirect.com> and <lycosdirect.com>, and intended to prevent holders from using their marks in corresponding domain names). The Panel concludes that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith and Policy  4.a.(iii) is satisfied.

Having established all three elements required by the ICANN Policy Rule 4(a), it is the decision of the panel that the requested relief be granted.

Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the domain name, "myhp.com", be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.