The Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Company , Palo Alto, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Molly Buck Richard, Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. The Respondent is World Wide Web Home Player, Moscow, RU, SU ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "wwwhp.com" registered with Bulkregister.com.

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.

Judge Ralph Yachnin, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on December 12, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 15, 2000.

On December 12, 2000, Bulkregister.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "wwwhp.com" is registered with Bulkregister.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bulkregister.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On December 15, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of January 4, 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 Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@wwwhp.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 January 8, 2001, pursuant to Complainantís 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 Forumís 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 the Complainant.

The Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") state the following with regard to default cases:

In this case, Respondent has not submitted a response, and therefore this Panelist may infer, for the purposes of this decision, that the averments in the complaint are true. See Ziegenfelder Co. v. VMH Enterprises, Inc. D2000-0039 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding that based on Respondentís failure to respond, the Panel draws two inferences: 1) that Respondent does not deny the facts asserted by Complainant, and 2) Respondent does not deny conclusions which the Complainant asserts can be drawn from the facts).

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 wwwhp.com, which consists solely of the common Internet term www and Complainantís world famous HP marks, is confusingly similar to Complainantís famous HP marks. See Bank of American Corp. v. InterMos, FA 95092 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2000) (finding that Respondentís domain name <wwwbankofamerica.com> is confusingly similar to Complainantís registered trademark "Bank of America" because it takes advantage of a typing error that users commonly make when searching on the Internet, i.e., eliminating the period between the www and the domain name).

The mark HP was first used in commerce by Complainant in 1941, long before the registration of the domain name. Since then, the HP marks have become famous and distinctive marks.

Respondent used the domain name to create the website, which is linked to a site that advertises gambling and a site that offers search engine services. Therefore, Respondentís use of the domain name is neither a legitimate use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy  4 (c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy  4 (c)(iii). See MSNBC Cable, LLC v. Tysys.com, D2000-1204 (WIPO Dec. 8, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in the famous MSNBC mark where Respondent attempted to profit using the Complainantís mark by redirecting Internet traffic to its own website); Computer Doctor Franchise Systems, Inc. v. The Computer Doctor, FA 95396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondentís website, which is blank but for links to other websites, is not a legitimate use of the domain names).

Moreover, Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Policy  4 (c)(ii). See Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding that the Respondent is not commonly known by the mark contained in the domain name where the Complainant has not permitted the 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").

Respondent used the domain name to attract Internet users to the web sites, which advertise gambling and offer search engine services, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantís mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondentís we sites. This fact demonstrates Respondentís registration and use of the domain name in bad faith. Policy  4 (b)(iv). See Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. v Shedon.com, D2000-0753 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy  4(b)(iv) by using the domain name <britannnica.com> to hyperlink to a gambling site); ESPN, Inc. v. Danny 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).

The Complainantís HP marks are well-known trademarks. Respondentís constructive knowledge of the Complainantís trademark further evidences his bad faith in registering the domain name. See The London Metal Exchange Ltd. v. Syed Hussain, D2000-1388 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the "letters ëlmeí are so obviously connected with a well-known entity that their very use by someone with no connection to the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith"); Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum, April 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration);

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that the Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the Complainantís EXXON mark given the world-wide prominence of the mark and thus the Respondent registered the domain name 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, "wwwhp.com" be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.