DECISION

Hewlett-Packard Company v World Wide Web Home Player

Claim Number: FA0012000096267

PARTIES

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").

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

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

PANEL

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.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

PARTIESí CONTENTIONS

  1. Complainant alleges the following:
  1. Complainant is the owner of numerous proprietary marks in connection with computer hardware, computers printers, computer peripherals, computer software and other related goods. Complainant owns twenty-five trademarks and service marks registered on the principal register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for marks consisting of HP (the "HP Marks").
  2. 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.
  3. Respondent registered with Bulkregister.com for the domain name in dispute wwwhp.com on March 7, 2000. This domain name wwwhp.com links directly to centerfind.com, a site offering search engine services. A pop-up box appears over centerfind.com advertising "CONGRATULATIONS!!! YOUíVE WON = FREE CASINO GAMES = VIRTUAL REALITY CASINO! CLICK on OK Will make You Reach!!" If the OK box is clicked, an attempt to link to greska.com, a non-functional site, is made.
  4. The domain name wwwhp.com is confusingly similar to the famous HP marks in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in this domain name due to the domain name consisting solely of the common Internet term www and Complainantís world famous HP marks.
  5. Respondentís use of Complainantís world famous HP marks along with the term www creates a high likelihood of confusion. Complainant has a strong Internet presence with its main website with the domain name hp.com. A consumer could easily repeat the www prefix of domain names and instead of being linked to a Complainant related site, be linked to a site that advertises gambling and offers search engine services unrelated to Complainant.
  6. The domain name was registered in bad faith because of the fact that the administrative and technical contact for Respondent, Alex Vorot, acts as administrative contact for numerous domain names registered under different registrant names. He is the administrative contact for adluxe.com which links directly to the address http://unique.mostcash.com/cgi-bin/gate1/mcu/ts_1460/0, a non-functional site; for russa.com and sexis.com both of which feature pornography; and for theyou.com which offers free domain name registration in the form of .gotoo.com, .ownbox.com, .useon.com, .nip.net, .playby.com and .adulty.com.
  7. The domain name should be considered as having been registered in bad faith also due to the fact that there is no evidence that Respondent is an active organization. The number of registrants for which Mr. Vorot serves as administrative contact and the lack of content relating to Respondent on the site represented by the domain name wwwhp.com is indicative of the fact that no such organization exists and that the domain name was registered in bad faith.
  8. The unauthorized use and continued use by Respondent in a domain name incorporating Complainantís famous HP marks constitutes use of a false designation of origin, as well as a false description or representation that is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception (a) as to the affiliation, connection or association between Complainant and Respondent; and (b) as to sponsorship or approval of Respondentís website by Complainant.
  9. The activities of Respondent as complained of herein have caused and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable harm to Complainant and its business reputation and goodwill.
  1. Respondent

Respondent has not submitted a response in this matter.

FINDINGS

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

(a) In the event that a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by these Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint.

(b) If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. Rule 14.

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).

DISCUSSION

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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

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).

Rights or Legitimate Interest

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").

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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).

DECISION

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.

 

Ralph Yachnin, Panelist

Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)

Dated: January 8, 2001

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page