The Complainant is Broadcom Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Gary J. Nelson, of Christie, Parker & Hale LLP. The Respondent is Intellifone Corporation, St. Petersburg, FL, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "broadcom2000.com" registered with Network Solutions.

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on January 4, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 8, 2001.

On Janary 9, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "broadcom2000.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 ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On January 9, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 29, 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@broadcom2000.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 February 2, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody 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 the Respondent.

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

Respondent submitted no response in this UDRP proceeding.

Complainant is a provider of integrated circuits, computer hardware, and software in the field of digital broadband communications.

Complainant is the owner of three registered trademarks and five pending trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. All of Complainant’s products and services are associated with its BROADCOM marks.

Respondent is using the domain name in question to redirect Internet users to its website, which offers goods and services related to the telecommunication industry. These goods and services are identical and/or related to the goods and services offered by Complainant.

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 rights in the BROADCOM mark based on its U.S. trademark registrations. In determining whether the domain name "broadcom2000.com" is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, the Panel refers to trademark law where a mark may not be registered when "the use… would be likely to deceive or cause confusion…." Prior UDRP decisions have held that the addition of numbers to a registered trademark does not create a distinct mark because the addition of numbers is non-descriptive and adds little to the domain name as a whole. See America Online, Inc. v. Xianfeng Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that adding the suffixes "502" and "520" to the ICQ trademark does little to reduce the potential for confusion); Hitachi, Ltd. v. Fortune Int’l Dev. Ent., D2000-0412 (WIPO July 2, 2000) (finding that the domain name, hitachi2000.net, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s HITACHI marks).

Respondent is known by the name Intellifone Corp. and is not commonly known by the term BROADCOM2000, which contains Complainant’s established mark. Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent registered domain names which infringed upon the Complainant’s mark and had no resemblance to the Respondent’s business name where Respondent’s competing business was located one and a half blocks from the Complainant’s business). Further, Respondent is not making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name by using the Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to its competing website. Such a use is obviously motivated by the commercial objective of increasing Internet traffic to its website. Thus, the Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was diverting consumers to its own website by using Complainant’s trademarks); North Coast Medical, Inc. v. Allegro Medical, FA 95541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 2, 2000) (finding no bona fide use where Respondent used the domain name to divert Internet users to its website).

Respondent is intentionally using the domain name in question to attract Internet users to its website by deliberately creating a likelihood of confusion between its competing website and the Complainant’s registered mark. Respondent’s infringement of Complainant’s rights in this manner establishes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) and ¶ 4(c)(iv).

Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) states in part "…you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Respondent plainly meets this circumstance of bad faith because Respondent is re-directing the domain name, which includes Complainant’s mark, to a website offering competing telecommunication goods and services. It seems clear that prior UDRP panels have made similar holdings in factually similar cases. See Nature’s Window v. Miller, D2000-0297 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that Respondent has diverted business from the Complainant to a competitor’s website in violation of Policy 4(b)(iii)); Hewlett Packard Co. v. Full System, FA 94637 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 22, 2000) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant by offering personal e-mail accounts under the domain name <openmail.com> which is identical to Complainant’s services under the OPENMAIL mark); EthnicGrocer.com, Inc. v. Unlimited Latin Flavors, Inc., FA 94385 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2000) (finding that the minor degree of variation from the Complainant's marks suggests that the Respondent, the Complainant’s competitor, registered the names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant's business).

Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) states in part "…by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."

Respondent plainly meets this element of bad faith because Respondent is intentionally attracting Internet users to its website by using the confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet traffic to its site. Again, it seems clear that this view also has been taken in several similar UDRP decisions. See Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent attracted users to a website sponsored by the Respondent and created confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of that website); Luck's Music Library v. Stellar Artist Mgmt., FA95650 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent had engaged in bad faith use and registration by linking the domain name to a website that offers services similar to Complainant’s services, intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks).

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, "broadcom2000.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.