Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. and Hewlett-Packard Company and Compaq Trademark B.V. v. N/A c/o Gu Bei a/k/a N/A c/o Shuai Nian Qing a/k/a N/A c/o La Duzi a/k/a N/A c/o Shu Lin
Claim Number: FA0911001292980
Complainant is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, L.P. and
Hewlett-Packard Company and Compaq
Trademark B.V. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers, of Richard Law Group, Inc.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAMES
The domain names at issue are <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, <hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com>, registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com.
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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 4, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 5, 2009.
On November 5, 2009, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, <hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com> domain names are registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a Publicdomainregistry.com 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 November 10, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 30, 2009 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@compaqdownload.com, postmaster@hewlettpackardl.com, postmaster@hewlettpackardsoftware.com, postmaster@hpcolorlaserjet.com, postmaster@hpcompaqpresario.com, postmaster@hpcustomersupport.com, postmaster@hpdownload.com, postmaster@hpnotebooks.com, postmaster@hpphotoprinter.com, postmaster@hpprinterrepair.com, postmaster@hpproduct.com, postmaster@hppromotion.com, postmaster@hpsoftwareupdate.com, and postmaster@www-compaq.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 8, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <compaqdownload.com> and <www-compaq.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark.
Respondent’s
<hewlettpackardl.com> and <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT PACKARD
mark.
Respondent’s <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, and <hpsoftwareupdate.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HP mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, <hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, <hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a technology company that operates in more than 170 countries around the world. Some of Complainant’s products include computers and ink-jet printers under Complainant’s COMPAQ and HP marks. Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its HEWLETT PACKARD (e.g., Reg. No. 1,861,560 issued November 8, 1994), HP (e.g., Reg. No. 1,116,835 issued April 24, 1979), and COMPAQ (e.g., Reg. No. 1,467,066 issued December 1, 1987) marks.
Respondent registered the <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, <hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com> domain names no earlier than April 24, 2004. The disputed domain names resolve to websites that contain hyperlink directories relating to Complainant’s competitors in the technology industry. Respondent also has offered to sell the <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <compaqdownload.com>, <www-compaq.com>, and <hpsoftwareupdate.com> domain names through SEDO or through language in the WHOIS information requesting $999.00 for the disputed domain names.
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 Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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.
Preliminary Issue:
Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and thus chooses to proceed with the instant proceedings. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the same or similar address for each disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the four nominal registrants of the disputed domain name have an e-mail address at <startseek.com> or an e-mail address associated with <startseek.com>. The Panel further finds the disputed domain names are registered with the same registrar. The Panel concludes that the connections to the same or similar physical location, e-mail address, and domain name registrant provide sufficient evidence that the nominal registrants are aliases for the same person or entity.
Complainant has established rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) in the HEWLETT PACKARD,
HP and COMPAQ marks through its registration of the marks with the
USPTO. See Microsoft
Corp. v. Burkes, FA 652743 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2006) (“Complainant has established rights in the
MICROSOFT mark through registration of the mark with the USPTO.”); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a
trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <compaqdownload.com> and the <www-compaq.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark. The disputed domain names contain Complainant’s entire COMPAQ mark and simply add either the generic term “download” or the letters “www” and a hyphen. The Panel finds the additions of a generic term, letters, or a hyphen are insufficient to adequately differentiate the disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark. See 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); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark BANK OF AMERICA because it “takes advantage of a typing error (eliminating the period between the www and the domain name)); see also Chernow Commc’ns, Inc. v. Kimball, D2000-0119 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (holding “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark"). The disputed domain names also contain a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” which is irrelevant under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.”). Therefore, the Panel finds the <compaqdownload.com> and the <www-compaq.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s COMPAQ mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent’s <hewlettpackardl.com> and <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT PACKARD
mark. Both of the disputed
domain names remove the space between the terms in Complainant’s mark and add
the gTLD “.com.” The <hewlettpackardl.com>
domain name adds the letter “l” as well to Complainant’s mark. The <hewlettpackardsoftware.com> domain name adds the descriptive term
“software,” which describes Complainant’s technology business. The Panel finds the removal of a space, additions of a letter, a descriptive term, or a gTLD
fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s
mark. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
31, 2007) (finding that “spaces are impermissible and a generic top-level
domain, such as ‘.com,’ ‘.net,’ ‘.biz,’ or ‘.org,’ is required in domain
names. Therefore, the panel finds that
the disputed domain name [<americangenerallifeinsurance.com>] is confusingly similar to the
complainant’s [AMERICAN GENERAL] mark.”); see
also Google, Inc. v. DktBot.org,
FA 286993 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 4, 2004) (“The mere addition of a single letter to the complainant’s mark does not
remove the respondent’s domain names from the realm of confusing similarity in
relation to the complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Kohler Co. v. Curley, FA 890812
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2007) (finding confusing similarity where <kohlerbaths.com>, the disputed
domain name, contained the
complainant’s mark in its entirety adding “the descriptive term ‘baths,’ which
is an obvious allusion to complainant’s business.”); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
Respondent’s <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>,
<hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>,
<hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>,
and <hpsoftwareupdate.com> domain names are confusingly
similar to Complainant’s HP mark. The
disputed domain names either contain descriptive terms that describe
Complainant’s technology business, or contain generic terms in addition to
Complainant’s mark. All of the disputed
domain names include the addition of the gTLD “.com.” The Panel finds the additions of a generic or
descriptive terms and a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish the disputed
domain names from Complainant’s mark. See supra Arthur Guinness Son & Co.;
see also supra Kohler Co. v. Curley; see also supra Jerry Damson, Inc. v.
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any
rights or legitimate interests in the <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>,
<hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>,
<hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>,
<hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>,
<hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com>
domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its
allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights
or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a
sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the
Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. However, the Panel will examine the record to
determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Do
the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)
(“Failure of a respondent to come forward to [contest complainant’s allegations]
is tantamount to admitting the truth of complainant’s assertions in this
regard.”); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. McCall, FA 135012 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (“Respondent's
failure to respond not only results in its failure to meet its burden, but also
will be viewed as evidence itself that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.”).
Respondent has offered no evidence, and there is no evidence in the record, suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not authorized to use the HEWLETT PACKARD, HP, and COMPAQ marks. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not sponsored or legitimately affiliated with Complainant in any way. The WHOIS information does not provide a connection between the domain name registrant information and the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also St. Lawrence Univ. v. Nextnet Tech, FA 881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record indicating that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to websites featuring hyperlink directories relating to Complainant’s competitors in the technology products and services industry. The Panel infers Respondent receives click-through fees for this use of the disputed domain names. The Panel concludes Respondent’s use of these confusingly similar disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair uses of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees); see also ALPITOUR S.p.A. v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the respondent’s contention of rights and legitimate interests in the <bravoclub.com> domain name because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a website containing links to various competing commercial websites, which the panel did not find to be a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
Respondent also has offered to sell the <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <compaqdownload.com>, <www-compaq.com>, and <hpsoftwareupdate.com> domain names through SEDO or through language in the WHOIS information requesting $999.00 for the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names for more than Respondent’s out of pocket costs is evidence Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in these disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s willingness to sell a contested domain name for more than its out-of-pocket costs provided additional evidence that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name); see also Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Fees, FA 937704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that a respondent’s willingness to sell a domain name to the complainant suggests that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
In addition, Respondent’s use of the <hewlettpackardl.com>
and <www-compaq.com>
domain names constitutes typosquatting.
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of domain names that are common
misspellings of the HEWLETT PACKARD or COMPAQ marks to redirect Internet users
seeking Complainant’s website fails to establish rights or interests pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent has offered the <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>,
<hpphotoprinter.com>, <compaqdownload.com>, <www-compaq.com>,
and <hpsoftwareupdate.com> domain names for sale. The disputed domain names either contain a
hyperlink to SEDO where the disputed domain names may be purchased, or provide
information in the WHOIS information requesting $999.00 for the disputed domain
names. The Panel finds Respondent likely
registered the disputed domain names for the purpose of selling them for more
than Respondent’s out of pocket costs.
The Panel concludes Respondent’s offer to sell these disputed domain
names constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (concluding that
the respondent registered and was using the <gwbakeries.mobi> domain name
in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) where it offered it for sale for far
more than its estimated out-of-pocket costs it incurred in initially
registering the disputed domain name); see
also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 30, 2003) (“Respondent's general offer of the
disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was
registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).”).
Respondent’s <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, <hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com> domain names resolve to websites containing hyperlink directories that relate to Complainant’s competitors in the technology industry. Internet users interested in Complainant and Complainant’s technology products and services may instead purchase those products and services from a competitor of Complainant because of Respondent’s use of confusingly similar disputed domain names. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names disrupts Complainant’s technology business, which constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Tesco Pers. Fin. Ltd. v. Domain Mgmt. Servs., FA 877982 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 13, 2007) (concluding that the use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to a directory website containing commercial links to the websites of a complainant’s competitors represents bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (holding that where the respondent’s website featured hyperlinks to competing websites and included a link to the complainant’s website, the respondent’s use of the <redeemaamiles.com> domain name constituted disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Panel infers Respondent receives click-through fees from the aforementioned hyperlinks. Internet users may become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with and sponsorship of the disputed domain names and resolving websites. Respondent attempts to profit from this confusion. The Panel finds Respondent’s use of confusingly similar disputed domain names for this purpose constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that offered services similar to those offered by the complainant); see also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).
Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting through its use of the <hewlettpackardl.com> and <www-compaq.com> domain names, which are common misspellings of Complainant’s HEWLETT PACKARD and COMPAQ marks. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s use of these disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. IQ Mgmt. Corp., FA 328127 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 28, 2004) (“By engaging in typosquatting, [r]espondent has registered and used the <vangard.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Khan, FA 137223 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 3, 2003) (finding the <wwwdewalt.com> domain name was registered to “ensnare those individuals who forget to type the period after the ‘www’ portion of [a] web-address,” which was evidence that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith).
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 relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <compaqdownload.com>, <hewlettpackardl.com>, <hewlettpackardsoftware.com>, <hpcolorlaserjet.com>, <hpcompaqpresario.com>, <hpcustomersupport.com>, <hpdownload.com>, <hpnotebooks.com>, <hpphotoprinter.com>, <hpprinterrepair.com>, <hpproduct.com>, <hppromotion.com>, <hpsoftwareupdate.com>, and <www-compaq.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 22, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum