Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, CA ("Complainant") represented by Molly Buck Richard, of Strasburger & Price LLP. Respondent is Compu-D International Inc., Van Nuys, CA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <hpdeals.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 Panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on September 4, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 5, 2001.

On September 6, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <hpdeals.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 September 6, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 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@hpdeals.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 October 3, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-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

The <hpdeals.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <hpdeals.com> domain name.

The <hpdeals.com> domain names were registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No response was received.

The HP trademark was first used by Complainant (Hewlett Packard) in 1941. Over the last sixty years HP has become a famous and distinctive mark due to Complainant’s promotional efforts. Complainant owns 44 trademarks and service marks on the Principal Register for the trademark HP in connection with computer hardware, software, and other related goods.

accessing the <hpdeals.com> domain name, Internet users are transferred to Respondent’s site where Respondent sells Complainant’s products. The Site also includes a link to Universal Computers, a related site that sells products other than Complainant’s. While Respondent has an agreement to sells Complainant’s products, the agreement prohibits Respondent from registering or using any domain name that contains HP.

Respondent has a history of registering other domain names that include famous trademarks like: <appledeals.com>, <ibmdeals.com>, and <compaqdeals.com>.

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.

The domain name <hpdeals.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous HP trademark because it is merely the trademark with a generic word and the common ULR suffix ".com" attached. See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that "[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word…nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY" and thus Policy 4(a)(i) is satisfied); see also Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the Complainant combined with a generic word or term).

The Panel finds that Policy 4(a)(i) has been satisfied

First, Complainant authorized Respondent to sell their products. However, Complainant forbids Respondent to use Complainant’s trademark. Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in unauthorized use of Complainant’s trademark to attract confused Internet users to Complainant’s website. As a result of Respondent’s illegitimate use he is not making a bona fide offering of goods and services. See Ullfrotté AB v. Bollnas Imp., D2000-1176 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding that although the Respondent legitimately sells goods originating from the Complainant, this does not give him the right to register and use the mark as a domain name without the consent of the holder of the trademark); see also 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).

Next, Respondent was not only not known by the famous trademark HP but was contractually denied use of the mark by Complainant. As a result, Respondent does not have legitimate rights in the mark. See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark contained in the domain name where Complainant has not permitted Respondent to use the NOKIA mark and no other facts or elements can justify prior rights or a legitimate connection to the names "Nokia" and/or "wwwNokia"); see Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

In addition, Respondent was not making a fair commercial use of the domain name by using Complainant’s trademark to lure Internet user’s to Respondent’s own site. See Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s products to Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark).

Further, Respondent’s use of complainant’s trademark to direct Internet users to Universal Computers, an unconnected site, is not a legitimate interest. See AltaVista v. Krotov, D2000-1091 (WIPO Oct. 25, 2000) (finding that use of the domain name to direct users to other, unconnected websites does not constitute a legitimate interest in the domain name).

The Panel finds that Policy 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.

Respondent’s use of the domain name to attract Internet users to his site and an additional site for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith. See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Jaspreet Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent directed Internet users seeking the Complainant’s site to its website for commercial gain); see also ESPN, Inc. v. Ballerini, FA 95410 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 15, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name to another website <iwin.com>, presumably, the Respondent received a portion of the advertising revenue from site by directing Internet traffic to the site, thus using a domain name to attract Internet users, for commercial gain).

Respondent’s pattern of registering domain names that include famous trademarks is evidence of bad faith. See Australian Stock Exch. v. Cmty. Internet (Australia), D2000-1384 (WIPO Nov. 30, 2000) (finding bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii) where Respondent registered multiple infringing domain names containing the trademarks or service marks of other widely known Australian businesses); see also Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assoc., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by registering multiple domain names which infringe upon others’ famous and registered trademarks); see also Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v. Shedon.com, D2000-0753 (Sept. 6, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent engaged in the practice of registering domain names containing the trademarks of others).

The Panel finds that Policy 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <hpdeals.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.