The domain name is identical to Complainant s mark. It can be inferred that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of attracting for commercial gain visitors to its website, and creating confusion as to the sponsorship by Complainant. The domain name was registered because it is associated with the nickname of Respondent s wife, who has been called by that name since 1974. The domain name is not being used, nor will it be used, for commercial gain. It was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and without malicious intent.
Complainant is a publicly listed international company operating unique fast-food restaurants.
Complainant s mark is famous, and, thus, it is entitled to the higher protection afforded it by law. It is conceded that the domain name in issue is identical to Complainant s mark. Thus, Respondent does have a legitimate interest and rights to the domain name pursuant to the Policy above. There is no evidence supporting this factor. Thus, the Panelist is required to find that Respondent has not registered or used the domain name in bad faith.