Complainant is Compaq Information Technologies Group, L.P., Houston, TX ("Complainant") represented by David M. Kelly of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &Dunner, L.L.P. Respondent is Shopcompaq.com, Bolivia, Chile ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <shopcompaq.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 6, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 7, 2001.

On September 7, 2001, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <shopcompaq.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 17, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 9, 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@shopcompaq.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 October15, 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 <shopcompaq.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.

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

The <shopcompaq.com> domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response was received.

Complainant has used the COMPAQ trademark since 1982 in connection with computer software, hardware, and computing and business solutions services. Compaq and a network of authorized partners sell Compaq’s products in over 200 countries. In 1994, Compaq became the largest global supplier of personal computers.

Complainant’s business generates significant revenues. Complainant received $42 billion in sales in 2000. Further Complainant spends millions each year to advertise its products and services. Complainant advertises and sells many of its products online at its <compaq.com> website.

Complainant’s COMPAQ mark is well known. In 2001, Interbrand, a leading brand marketing and consulting firm, ranked the COMPAQ name as the 24^th most valuable name in the world. The brand name is valued at $14.6 billion.

Respondent has not paid registration fees for <shopcompaq.com>. As a result, Registrant cannot use the domain name because it has been placed on "hold" for nonpayment by NSI. In addition, Respondent has registered several trademark-related domain names. Respondent’s administrative contact is listed as "atte" at the WHOIS site.

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 <shopcompaq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ trademark because Respondent’s addition of "shop" to the trademark does not distinguish it from the trademark. See Nike, Inc. v. Crystal International, D2001-0102 (WIPO March 19, 2001) (finding the domain names <nikeshop.net>, <nikeshop.org>, <nike-shop.com>, <nike-shop.net> confusingly similaar to NIKE); see also Gorstew Limited and Unique Vacations v. Shop A-Z.com, Inc., FA 94941 (Nat. Arb. Forum july 11, 2000) (finding the domain names <shopsandals.com> and <shop-sandals.com> confusingly similar to the mark SANDALS).

Further, the domain name in question incorporates the complainant’s COMPAQ trademark. By using the Complainant’s mark this way, the Respondent is attempting to create confusion as to the source of the Complainant’s sponsorship, affiliation, and/or endorsement.  See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. Café au lait, FA 93670 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 13, 2000) (holding that the Respondent’s domain name <Marriott-Hotel.com> was confusingly similar to Marriott’s marks and domain name <Marriott.com>); see also NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (finding that the "domain name ‘myniit.com,’ which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT").

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

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain at issue because it was not offering bona fide services or goods. See J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale & Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names for profit); see also Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Romero, D2000-1273 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent failed to submit a response to the Complaint and had made no use of the domain name in question).

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <shopcompaq.com> because it was never commonly known by the domain name. Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous COMPAQ mark. See Victoria’s Secret et al v. Asdak, FA 96542 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2001) (finding sufficient proof that Respondent was not commonly known by a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s VICTORIA’S SECRET mark because of Complainant’s well-established use of the mark).

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent did not make a fair use of the domain name. Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark in its entirety to suggest a connection to Complainant is not a fair use. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in using the domain names <caterpillarparts.com> and <caterpillarspares.com> to suggest a connection or relationship, which does not exist, with the Complainant's mark CATERPILLAR)

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

Respondent’s pattern of registering famous marks as domain names is evidence of bad faith. Pursuant to Policy 4(b)(ii) See 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 Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that registration of more than one domain name that infringes on another’s registered mark(s) supports the inference that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s marks upon registering the domain names; and the registration of multiple domain names that infringe on the Complainant’s trademark(s) is evidence of a pattern of conduct).

Given the uniqueness of Complainant’s mark COMPAQ, there is no plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the domain name <shopcompaq.com> other than to trade on the goodwill of the COMPAQ name. See Telstra Corp. Ltd v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO February 18, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s registration of complainant’s coined, well-known mark could not have been for any plausible reason other than to trade on complainant’s goodwill); see also Europay Int’l S.A. v. Domaines Ltd. And Cecilia Ng., D2000-0513 (WIPO July 31, 2000) (finding that Respondents must have known they were infringing upon Complainant’s exceptionally well-known mark by registering it as a domain name).

Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name is evidence of bad faith. See Telstra Corp. Ltd v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (finding that respondent’s registration of complainant’s coined, well-known mark could not have been for any plausible reason other than to trade on complainant’s goodwill); see also CBS Radio Inc. v. Oldies Radio, D2000-1033 (WIPO Oct. 5, 2000) (finding same).

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 <shopcompaq.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.