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 Scott Jones, Corvallis, OR ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is <compaqq.com>, registered with Enom, Inc..

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.

John J. Upchurch as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on August 17, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 20, 2001.

On Aug 21, 2001, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <compaqq.com> is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. 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 August 22, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 11, 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@compaqq.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 October 1, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed John J. Upchurch 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 <compaqq.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's famous trademark COMPAQ.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <compaqq.com> domain name.

Respondent registered and used the <compaqq.com> domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent has failed to submit a response.

Since 1982, Complainant has been a leader in the development and manufacture of computer hardware and software, as well as other business solution services. Complainant's products are currently sold in over 200 countries via Complainant directly and through its authorized partners. Since 1994, Complainant has been the largest global supplier of personal computers. Complainant spends millions of dollars every year to advertise its products under the COMPAQ trademark.

Complainant holds six U.S. federal trademark registrations; Registration No. 1,467,066 issued December 1, 1987, Registration No.1,264,107 issued December 1, 1987, Registration No. 2,127,189 issued January 6, 1998, Registration No. 1,993,756 issued August 16, 1996, Registration No. 1,993,755 issued August 13, 1996, and Registration No. 2,183,367 issued August 25, 1998.

Complainant is also the owner of an entire family of trademarks bearing the word COMPAQ, including registrations for COMPAQ CAPITAL, COMPAQ PC CARD SOLUTION, COMPAQ CARE and Design, COMPAQ AUTHORIZED DEALER and Design, and COMPAQ INSIGHT MANAGER and Design.

Complainant is the owner of the domain name <compaq.com> registered April 20, 1995 and uses the website to promote is COMPAQ brand products and services.

Respondent registered the <compaqq.com> domain name on October 8, 2000. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to its website at <freebiegeek.com/fg/index.cfm?AID=5046480&PID=865907> for his own personal gain. Respondent is a member of FreebieGeek's affiliate program. FreebieGeek pays Respondent $.75 each time someone is lead to Respondent's website. Respondent's website contains banner ads as well as various links to offers for free merchandise, including merchandise from Complainant's competitor Dell Computers. When an Internet user attempts to leave the Respondent's website another advertisement pops up for Subscription-service.com. If an Internet user clicks on Respondent's first link labeled "$1,000 is up for grabs!" three additional browser windows pop up two of which display pornographic websites, and if the user attempts to exit these websites three additional pornographic sites are displayed. The Respondent has not used the <compaqq.com> domain name for any other purpose.

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.

Complainant, through its extensive and continuous use and its numerous United States registrations has established that it has rights in the COMPAQ mark. The disputed domain name <compaqq.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because Respondent has done nothing but add another "q" to the end of COMPAQ. See Victoria’s Secret et al. v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that misspelling words and adding letters on to words does not create a distinct mark but is nevertheless confusingly similar with the Complainant’s marks).

Furthermore, the <compaqq.com> domain name is confusingly similar because it is very easy for an Internet user to accidentally type <compaqq.com> when trying to reach the Complainant's website <compaq.com> and there is great potential for the consumer to believe that there is an affiliation between the two. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainant’s website, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

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

It is well established that a Panel has the discretion to find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where Respondent fails to submit a response. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest in the domain names).

Furthermore, when Respondent fails to submit a response the Panel is permitted to make

CPIC NET & Hussain, D2000-1214 (WIPO Nov. 26, 2000) (finding "that on the evidence provided by the Complainant and in the absence of any submissions from the Respondents, that the Complainant has established that (i) the Respondents are not using and have not used, or are not demonstrating and have not demonstrated, an intent to use the said domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondents are not and have not been commonly known by the said domain name; and (iii) the Respondents are not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the said domain name, without intending to mislead and divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s <THE BODY SHOP> trademark and service mark").

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

Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for commercial gain via redirecting Internet users to another website by creating a likelihood of confusion is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 (b)(iv). See Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent directed Internet users seeking the Complainant’s site to its website for commercial gain).

Furthermore, because of the famous nature of Complainant's COMPAQ mark, it may be assumed that Respondent had notice of Complainant's mark at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd., D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Respondent demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).

Respondent's website, where Internet users are redirected by typing in the disputed domain name <compaqq.com>, advertises free computers from Complainant's competitor which constitutes a finding of bad faith. See Southern Exposure v. Southern Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding Respondent acted in bad faith by attracting Internet users to a website that competes with Complainant’s business).

Furthermore, the registration and use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites offering banner advertisements and pornographic material constitutes a finding of bad faith. See Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding bad faith where the Respondent linked the domain name in question to websites displaying banner advertisements and pornographic material).

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 <compaqq.com> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.