Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, CA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Molly Buck Richards, Strasburger & Price, L.L.P. The Respondent is HPB2B.com, Seoul, SE, KR ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is hpb2b.com registered with Register.com.

The undersigned certifies that he or she 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 4, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 30, 2000.

On December 6, 2000, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name hpb2b.com is registered with Register.com and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.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 6, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 26, 2000 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@hpb2b.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 December 29, 2000, 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.

A. Complainant

B. Respondent

There was no response or any other communication from the Respondent.

Complainant is the owner of numerous proprietary marks in connection with computer hardware, computers printers, computer peripherals, computer software and other related goods. Complainant is the owner of twenty-three trademarks and service marks registered on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for marks consisting of HP and the owner of two additional pending trademark applications for marks consisting of HP.

The mark HP, an abbreviation of the company name, was first used in commerce by Complainant in 1941. Over the last six decades, Complainant has invested a substantial effort, including the expenditure of substantial dollars, to develop goodwill in the HP marks and to cause consumers throughout the United States and the rest of the world to recognize the HP marks as distinctly designating products which originate with the Complainant. These promotional efforts over the last sixty years have resulted in the HP marks becoming famous and distinctive marks.

On February 29, 2000, Respondent registered with Register.com for the domain name hpb2b.com, which is the subject of this complaint. The website represented by this domain name are currently under construction. The domain name hpb2b.com is currently for sale for $10,000 on GreatDomains.com, a website that facilitates the sale of 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 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.

As the Complainant indicates, the abbreviation "B2B" (business to business) stands for the exchange of products, services, or information between businesses. Complainant has a reputation of providing computer goods and services to businesses and professionals. Therefore, the "B2B" term could be associated with the Complainantís business. Respondentís use of this term in association with the HP mark creates a likelihood of confusion that the domain name will resolve to a website sponsored by the Complainant. Any use contrary would cause confusion among Internet users. See America Online, Inc. v. iDomainNames.com, FA 93766 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 24, 2000) (finding that Respondentís domain name <go2AOL.com> was confusingly similar to Complainantís mark AOL); America Online Inc. v. Chinese ICQ Network, D2000-0808 (WIPO Aug. 31, 2000) (finding that the addition of the numeral 4 in the domain name "4icq.com" does nothing to deflect the impact on the viewer of the mark "ICQ" and is therefore confusingly similar); Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Lizmi, FA 94329 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that Respondentís domain names <pokemon2000.com> and <pokemons.com> are confusingly similar to the Complainantís mark).

Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied Policy paragraph 4.a.(i).

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the ICANN Policy inquires as to whether or not the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests vested in the domain name. Paragraph 4(c) provides examples of circumstances that can demonstrate the existence of such rights or legitimate interests: (i) use of, or preparations to use, the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the fact that the Respondent has commonly been known by the domain name; and (iii) legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.

In failing to respond, the Respondent also failed to show that he is commonly known by the domain name. Further, in neglecting to respond, the Respondent has failed to show that the domain name is being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial purpose.

Offering a domain name for sale is a legitimate business purpose. However, offering to sell a domain name that infringes upon anotherís trademark for an exorbitant price is prohibited and does not constitute a legitimate business interest under Policy paragraph 4.c.(i). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. High Performance Networks, Inc., FA 95083 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent registered the domain name with the intention of selling the domain name). Given that the Respondent is attempting to sell the domain name and has made no use thereof, any such argument that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name would be questionable. Policy paragraph 4.c.(ii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the evidence reveals that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the ICANN Policy it is incumbent on the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the ICANN Policy provides a number of circumstances which, if found to be present, are evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In particular, paragraph 4(b)(i) of the ICANN Policy holds that, if the circumstances indicate that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name to the Complainant, that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark and that the consideration sought by the Respondent is in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, then this is evidence of bad faith registration and use on behalf of the Respondent.

Respondent is offering the domain name for sale at an auction site. Many previous UDRP decisions have held that this demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4.b.(i). See Wrenchead.com, Inc. v. Hammersla, D2000-1222 (WIPO Dec. 12, 2000) (finding that offering the domain name for sale at an auction site is evidence of bad faith registration and use); Globosat Programadora Ltda v. Artmidia Comunicacao Visual Criacao E Arte Ltda, D2000-0605 (WIPO Sept. 13, 2000) (finding that "the fact that almost all the domain names registered by the Respondent or the Administrative Contact for these domains are inactive and redirected to a site apparently dedicated to the commerce of domain names, force this Panelist to consider thatÖ.Respondent has registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain names registration to the Complainant or to a Complainant's competitor for valuable consideration"); Randstad General Partnet, LLC v. Domains For Sale For You, D2000-0051 (WIPO Mar. 24, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent offered the domain name for sale on its website <internetdomains4u.com> for $24,000); The Step2 Co. v. Softastic.com Corp., D2000-0393 (WIPO June 26, 2000) (finding that the Respondentís attempt to sell the domain name in question on <greatdomains.com>, a domain name auction site, for $100,000 constitutes bad faith).

In the Panel's opinion the evidence shows bad faith registration and use on behalf of the Respondent.

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 hpb2b.com be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.