Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0622.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:37:56+00:00

Document:
The disputed domain name is k2r.com and the registrar is Register.com, Inc. of New York, NY, USA. Although the parties have both used the capitalization K2r, the registrar�s records indicate that the actual registration is in all lower-case letters. To avoid confusion, the domain name will be referred to hereafter as "K2r.com."
The panel has satisfied itself that the complaint was filed in accordance with the requirements of the Rules and the Center�s Supplemental Rules; payment was properly made; the Center�s assessment concerning the complaint�s compliance with the formal requirements was correct; the complaint was properly notified in accordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules; the response was filed within time; the administrative panel was properly constituted and all panelists submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence. The language of the proceeding was English.
The panel has decided to admit the complainant�s reply but since the reply adds nothing to the complaint, the panel does not trouble the respondent to respond to it.
In the spring of 2000, Mrs. Trigano asked her son Jeremie Trigano to look into establishing an internet presence for the recently opened store. Mr. Trigano�s first step was to find an appropriate domain name. <k2r.com> was available. Mr. Trigano registered it on March 7, 2000. That same day he began designing a web site.
When the complainant discovered the respondent�s registration of the domain name K2r.com, its attorneys sent a demand letter to the respondent on April 5, 2000. This stated that the respondent�s registration and possible use of the K2r.com domain name violated the complainant�s legal rights.
Through counsel, the respondent responded by letter dated April 26, 2000 referring to his mother�s store in Paris as "KIRK AND ROSIE RICH". The letter claimed the respondent intends to use the K2r.com domain name for a website featuring information about "KIRK AND ROSIE RICH" and that he tried to register the domain name KRR.com before he registered K2r.com but found it was unavailable.
The complainant sent a second letter to the respondent�s representative, dated May 8, 2000, which again stated that the respondent�s registration and intended use of K2r.com violated the complainant�s legal rights. The complainant received no written response to this letter but respondent�s counsel had two telephone conversations with counsel for the complainant before the complaint was filed.
Shortly after the respondent had received the complainant�s demand letter of April 5, 2000, he registered the domain names kirkandrosierich.com, rosierich.com and krrich.com.
5. Parties� Contentions (omitting most cited authorities).
The respondent�s registration of the domain name K2r.com is a flagrant attempt to subvert the purpose of domain name use and registration and to circumvent the authority of the domain name registration system.
The supposedly unavailable domain name KRR.com was not registered until March 7, 2000, the same date as the Respondent�s registration of K2r.com. According to Network Solutions, Inc., a modified registration record is not available through the WHOIS database for up to 24 to 48 hours from the time of the update. Thus, given that time lag, the domain name KRR.com would have appeared available for registration when the respondent viewed the WHOIS records on March 7, 2000. For that reason, the respondent�s claim that the KRR.com domain name was unavailable on March 7, 2000 is inherently suspect.
Even more suspicious is that it was not until after the respondent had received the complainant�s demand letter of April 5, 2000 that he registered the domain names kirkandrosierich.com, rosierich.com and krrich.com, domain names that are far more obvious choices for his mother�s store. The respondent, however, did not register the domain names kirketrosierich.com, kirketrosie.com or ketrr.com, all of which actually contain the name of the store. Other suitable domain names such as kandrrich.com, kirkandrosie.com or kandrosierich.com also remain available according to Register.com.
The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name K2r.com, because the domain name bears no relationship to the business of the respondent or his mother. No reasonable explanation exists for use of the K2r.com domain name in connection with a store named "KIRK ET ROSIE RICH," particularly given that the store�s business card uses the symbol "K & R". Like the domain name MandM.com, used by the famous M&M candies, kandrr.com or, even its French version, ketrr.com (both of which could have been adopted by the respondent) are the logical choices for a domain name reflecting the store�s symbol.
On March 7, 2000, before notice of this dispute, Jeremie Trigano began designing a web site. A month later he received a letter from the complainant�s counsel, accusing him of trademark infringement and cybersquatting, and demanding that he cease using the domain name, even though the domain name was not in use. He explained that he was not a cybersquatter, but that the domain name was registered for use by his mother�s store, which had the initials KRR, thus the domain name K2R.COM.
Whether or not the domain name and the complainant�s mark are identical is irrelevant for purposes of this decision.
As explained to the complainant before this action was filed, the domain name is a derivative for a store owned by Mr. Trigano�s mother.
The complainant makes the absurd suggestion that because Kirk & Rose Rich�s listing in the Paris telephone book uses the French "et" instead of the English "and," Mr. Trigano�s position lacks legitimacy. The ampersand is interpreted in French as "et," as demonstrated by the attorneys for the complainant (Debevoise & Plimpton)�s own Paris telephone listing, "Debevoise et Plimpton".
All of Mr. Trigano�s registrations have to do with his mother�s boutique store.
Mr. Trigano registered the name for a high-end boutique store; the store does not compete with Complainant�s cleaning products.
The complainant asserts, contrary to the facts and simple logic, that <k2r.com> "bears no relationship to the business of" Kirk and Rosie Rich. Although a simple explanation should not need to be repeated, KRR are the initials of the store. KRR includes two "R"s. Thus, K2R is a logical abbreviation for the store name. K2R includes three symbols, a factor important to Mr. Trigano in finding a domain name for his mother�s store.
The complainant also asserts that the domain name has been "registered and used in bad faith" and that Mr. Trigano "has exhibited a pattern of cybersquatting behavior" based on this one registration. Pattern requires more than one domain name. Pattern is defined as "frequent or widespread incidence": Merriam-WebSter�s Collegiate Dictionary, www.m-w.com. The complainant has failed to demonstrate any pattern by Mr. Trigano.
Mr. Trigano has no interest in confusing consumers who are seeking cleaning products with his mother�s high-end Paris boutique. The respondent has never used or intended to use the subject domain in any way related to cleaning products.
As another example of the thin "evidence" that the complainant is using to demonstrate cybersquatting, the complainant states that Network Solutions, Inc. does not update its WHOIS database for 24 to 48 hours from the date of registration. Therefore, Mr. Trigano must be lying about the unavailability of <krr.com> on March 7, 2000, the same day he registered <k2r.com>. However, this is not the first time that registration of two domain names occurred on the same day, making the latter registrant�s attempt to register the first domain name a failure. See, e.g., Calstore.com v. Calstore.net, NAF 94206 (both the complainant and respondent attempted to register the subject domain name on the same day). Mr. Trigano registered the domain name at issue while he was either in New York or Paris. The registrant of <krr.com> apparently resides in California. "The fact that, even though a world apart, both applied to register at the almost identical moment would be an indication that neither knew of the other�s activities." Id.
The complainant also makes the ridiculous point that Mr. Trigano must be a cyberquatter because he only registered other domain names for his mother�s store after receiving the complainant�s demand letter. Mr. Trigano registered these domains after he received a threat from a massive New York law firm that he would be sued for cybersquatting unless he surrendered the <k2r.com> domain. Mr. Trigano reacted as most rational people would - - he registered other domain names in case <k2r.com> is wrongfully transferred to the complainant.
Even more preposterous is the complainant�s suggestion that because there are dozens of other domain names available to Mr. Trigano, he must be a cybersquatter. If this were so, then anyone who did not register all possible domain names for a legitimate business could be tagged a cyberquatter by someone wanting a domain name.
- Mr. Trigano registered other domain names reflecting the name of his mother�s store after receiving the complainant�s cease and desist letter.
- Mr. Trigano failed to register all possible domain names for his mother�s store.
In this case, despite the complainant�s bald assertions to the contrary, the evidence is quite inadequate to show that the respondent registered the domain name for the primary purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the complainant or one of its competitors: see Creo Products Inc. v. Website in Development, D2000-0160.
Counsel for the complainant issued a cease and desist letter to Mr. Trigano. Mr. Trigano responded with facts about the domain name being a derivative of his mother�s store. The complainant confirmed those facts, apparently by visiting the Paris boutique and acquiring a business card, a copy of which is attached to the complaint. Thus, the complainant was able to confirm that there was a store named Kirk & Rosie Rich, and that the domain <k2r.com> was registered by the store owner�s son. Nevertheless, the complainant chose to file its complaint, in which it asserted statements without support. Indeed, some of the statements are so unreasonable that they are indicative of bad faith, such as the allegation that Mr. Trigano has participated in a pattern of registering domain names to prevent other rightful parties from using the domain names.
The domain name k2r.com is virtually identical to the registered trademark and service mark K2r owned by the complainant. See Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1005 (D. Minn. 1998) (finding "post-it.com" and "Post-It" to be the same); Interstellar Starship Servs. Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1331, 1335 (D. Or. 1997) ("In the context of Internet use, [�epix.com�] is the same mark as [�EPIX�]"); Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, No. 97-0629 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1997) (concluding that "planned-parenthood.com" and "Planned Parenthood" were essentially identical), aff�d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 90 (1998).
On March 7, 2000, before notice of this dispute, and in response to a request from his mother, Jeremie Trigano began designing a web site for his mother�s Paris store. The evidence (respondent�s Exhibit 4) shows the name used that day on the draft web pages was "Kirk & Rosie Rich". The disputed domain name was not used. Nor was any ".com" name used on those pages. This was the very day on which the disputed domain name was registered and the same day as the respondent had also sought unsuccessfully to register the domain name KRR.com, his preferred name for the store�s web site. The panel accepts that the respondent�s web site which he began drafting that day was intended to be used by his mother�s store with whatever domain name was registered for it.
Although the disputed domain name was not used in the draft that day, the panel finds that the respondent intended, in registering the disputed domain name, to find a short and catchy way of referring to his mother�s store in whatever domain name he could find that was available and suitable for that purpose.
The panel finds that the disputed domain name is a derivative of the name of the Paris store and thus the respondent registered a domain name that corresponds to a name that was in use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of this dispute. It is not the only possible derivative of the name of the store but it is a logical and reasonable one. There is no reason to question the respondent�s explanation as to how he came to choose the name K2r.com.
The panel is fortified in reaching this conclusion by the fact that the complainant and the respondent�s mother are not engaged in competition with each other (so there is little or no likelihood of confusion); the absence of any evidence that the respondent had any reason to seek to divert customers from the complainant to his mother�s store, even assuming (as has not been demonstrated) that the respondent was aware of the complainant�s mark and the absence of any evidence to support the complainant�s assertion that its mark is famous (although the panel is prepared to accept that it is well-known in the field of household cleaning). Even if evidence of fame were supplied, this panel is not prepared to make a legal determination on such a contentious issue as a mark�s famousness. This is a complex trademark infringement claim that is more properly left to courts of law.
It is possible for a term to be used as a trade mark in different industries simultaneously without conflict: Exclaim Technologies v. Net Exclamation, AF-0160. Trademark and unfair competition law permit multiple users to trade under identical marks so long as the consumer is not confused as the source or origin of the goods and services: 2E Corp. v. Imagisys, Inc., AF-0162 . The respondent�s reason for registering the domain name (that it was short, simple and easy to remember) provide an entirely reasonable and proper explanation for the respondent�s choice of this word: Zero Int�l Holding GmbH & Co. v. Beyonet Services et. al, D2000-0161. The respondent has no interest in confusing consumers who are seeking cleaning products with his mother�s Paris boutique.
The panel has found the respondent, in registering the disputed domain name, intended to reflect the name of his mother�s store in a way that seemed appropriate to him. The existence of possible alternatives, not similar to the complainant�s mark, does not establish bad faith registration on the part of the respondent. The complainant presents another untenable argument by implying that respondent acted in bad faith by making a suspect claim that a preferred domain name (krr.com) was not available at the time the disputed name was registered. The complainant does not properly understand the way that domain registration dates are recorded. The date of a domain registration can refer to the beginning of an initial registration period, or it can refer to the date that a prior registration was transferred to a new owner, or it can indicate the date that a prior registration was transferred from one registrar to another by the same owner. Each of these events triggers a new registration date. No registration date has any evidentiary value on the availability of the domain before that date.
Although the respondent has not used the disputed domain name, there are cases in which bad faith use has been found even though the name is not being used in the usual sense: Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (registrant actively concealing identity) and Barney�s, Inc. v. BNY Bulletin Board D2000-0059 (negotiating to transfer the name).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.