Complainant is Micron Eletronics, Inc., Nampa, ID, USA ("Complainant") represented by John Cain, of Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP. Respondent is Frank Holden Magical Island Solutions, Kailua-Kona, HI, USA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "Micron-PC.com" registered with Network Solutions.

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

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on March 1, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 5, 2001.

On March 6, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "Micron-PC.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that 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 March 6, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of March 26, 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@Micron-PC.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 April 2, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member Panel, the Forum appointed Judge Ralph Yachnin 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 Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

"As set forth herein, the domain name should be transferred to Micron because (i) Micron is the owner of common law trademark rights in the marks MICRONPC.COM^TM and MICRONPC^TM and is the licensee of the mark MICRONâ for use in association with personal computers (PCs); (ii) the current registrant of MICRON-PC.COM has no rights to or legitimate interest in that domain name; and (iii) the current registrant has registered and used the domain name in bad faith by directing Internet traffic seeking information about Micron’s MICRONPC.COM^TM and MICRONPC^TM and other MICRON Personal Computer products to its own website at MICRON-PC.COM and/or to otherwise profit from goodwill that Micron has built, and is continuing to build, in its MICRONPC.COM^TM and MICRONPC^TM marks."

B. Respondent

Respondent has not filed any response to the allegations raised in the Complaint.

On May 25, 1999, two years after Complainant began using MICRONPC.COM, Respondent, registered the domain name "Micron-PC.com." Respondent has made no use of the website connected to the domain name. Rather, Internet users are directed to the Registrar’s "coming soon" webpage.

On October 13, 2000, Complainant sent a letter to Respondent concerning Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name and requesting that Respondent voluntarily agree to transfer the domain name to Complainant. The letter was sent by first class mail to the physical address in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii listed in the "WhoIs" registration records of Network Solutions, Inc., for "Micron-PC.com." As of the filing date of this complaint, Complainant had not received a response to its demand letter from Respondent.

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.

Respondent’s domain name "Micron-PC.com"is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Respondent has merely interposed a hyphen between ‘MICRON’ and ‘PC’ of Complainant’s MICRONPC and MICRONPC.COM marks. For purposes of assessing the confusing similarity between domain names and trademarks, UDRP Panels have held that top-level domain extensions, spaces, hyphens and punctuation are ignored. Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (finding the TALK-CITY.COM domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark TALKCITY); InfoSpace.com v. Tenenbaum Ofer, D2000-0075 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) ("The domain name ‘info-space.com’ is identical to Complainant’s INFOSPACE trademark. The addition of a hyphen and .com are not distinguishing features"); Columbia Sportswear Co. v. Keeler, D2000-0206 (WIPO May 16, 2000) (finding "[t]he use of hyphens ‘columbia-sports-wear-company’ in one of the Respondent's domain names in issue is insufficient to render it different to the trademark COLUMBIA SPORTSWEAR COMPANY").

The Panel finds that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

Respondent has yet to provide any basis that would legitimize any claim it has to the contested domain name.

In particular, the Respondent does not appear to have used or made any preparations to use any of the Domain Names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. See Nike, Inc. v. Crystal Int’l, D2001-0102 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent made no use of the infringing domain names); Chanel, Inc. v. Uraina Heyward, D2000-1802 (Feb. 23, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where "Respondent registered the domain name and did nothing with it").

There is also no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by this domain name or that Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(ii), (iii).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four examples of bad faith, which are not exclusive, but which shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. UDRP Panels have held that bad faith registration and use can be established by other factors that are not set forth in paragraph 4(b). Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc. v. Home Interiors, D2000-0010 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2000) ("[J]ust because Respondent’s conduct does not fall within the ‘particular’ circumstances set out in ¶4(b), does not mean that the domain names at issue were not registered in and are not being used in bad faith"); Educational Testing Service v. TOEFL, D2000-0044 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that the Policy "[I]ndicates that its listing of bad faith factors is without limitation").

Based upon the evidence provided to the Panel, it is evident that the domain name in question is distinct and was purposefully selected by Respondent to infringe upon Complainant’s trademarks. Complainant’s MICRON-PC mark is so obviously connected with Complainant that use by any other entity is evidence of Respondent’s opportunistic bad faith. America Online Inc. v. Shenzhen JZT Computer Software Co. Ltd, D2000-0809 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that "gameicq.com" and "gameicq.net" are obviously connected with services provided with the world-wide business of ICQ and the very use by someone with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith); Chanel, Inc. AG v. Designer Exposure, D2000-1832 (WIPO Feb. 15, 2001) (finding that "[t]he domain names in dispute are so clearly connected with the well-known CHANEL mark that its very use by the Respondent who has no connection with Complainant’s names or products suggests opportunistic bad faith).

Further, Respondent has made no use of the domain name during the year and a half he has owned the domain name. Respondent’s warehousing of the domain name, in addition to his failure to submit a response in this proceeding, reveal that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Martineau, FA 95359 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000) (finding that the Respondent’s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name, in addition to the passive holding of the domain name, reveal that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith)

As a result, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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, "Micron-PC.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.