Zyliss AG v. The Gourmet Kitchen, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0306000162069
PARTIES
Complainant
is Zyliss AG, Lyss, SWITZERLAND
(“Complainant”) represented by Richard
J. Block, of Mirsky & Block, PLLC. Respondent
is The Gourmet Kitchen, Tuscaloosa, AL,
USA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <zylissonline.com>,
registered with Bulkregister.Com, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially
and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as
Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn
Osborne as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on June 9, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint
on June 12, 2003.
On
June 11, 2003, Bulkregister.Com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <zylissonline.com>
is registered with Bulkregister.Com, Inc. and that the Respondent is the
current registrant of the name. Bulkregister.Com, Inc. has verified that
Respondent is bound by the Bulkregister.Com, 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
June 12, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 2,
2003 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@zylissonline.com by e-mail.
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 23, 2003.
Complainant’s
Additional Submission was received and determined to be timely on June 30,
2003.
Respondent’s
Additional Submission was received and determined to be timely on July 2, 2003.
Complainant’s
Additional Submission was received and determined not to be timely on July 7,
2003.
On July 3, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the
dispute decided by a single-member
Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne
as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complaint
The
assertions in the Complaint can be summarized as follows:
The
Complainant is the owner of the trade mark Zyliss registered in the US in
January 1975 for, inter alia, kitchen and small household appliances.
The
Respondent registered the domain name Zylissonline.com on January 31, 2001.
This domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark Zyliss
in that it merely adds to the trade mark the words “online.com” and the
addition is not a distinguishing difference.
The
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name because the Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name
diverts Internet users to a web site unconnected with the Complainant’s
business. The Respondent is known as “The Gourmet Kitchen” and is not commonly
known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use for commercial gain of
the confusingly similar domain name misleads customers into believing that they
are dealing with the Complainant.
The
Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith in that the
Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of
the Respondent’s web site or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web
site.
B. Response
The
assertions in the Response can be summarized as follows:
The
Respondent started business in October, 1994 as a retail kitchen store selling
the products of a number of companies including the Complainant’s products. In
1996 it opened its first on-line store at the <gourmet.org> domain name.
After finding that customers got lost on its site which sold 1500 products of
27 companies, the Respondent created specific sites starting with
thermosonline.com which was a great success and resulted in good customer comment.
This was the start of a network of similar sites.
The
Respondent’s aim was to make customer searches and purchases simpler. The
network was never to take away business or misrepresent any company it sold
for. The aim was to sell products of wholesale companies to the end user.
Almost all of the companies concerned were flattered and supportive and the
Respondent now has about 30 such sites. For companies that are concerned the
Respondent offers to include disclaimers such as “We are not the Zyliss AG company.”
The Respondent has not had any major complaints about its site until this
one.
<zylissonline.com> was invented, reserved, purchased and
created solely by the Respondent. It is
a retail site for end users which advertises the Zyliss name for free across
the world and does not sell wholesale to retailers. The Complainant is a
wholesaler which does not sell to the end user.
The
<zylissonline.com> name contains “Zyliss” but the term “online”
tells the customer that the items are available to the public through the
Respondent’s web site. The Respondent does not advertise any other product
lines on the site keeping customers loyal to Zyliss products. All pages of <zylissonline.com>
contain statements stating “we are not the Zyliss AG company” and states “If
you need to get in touch with them, call us and we will gladly give you their
number.” The Respondent does this so that it can save consumer’s time by
answering their small questions and preventing the Complainant from receiving
unnecessary calls. Such an extensive support practice demonstrates its
knowledge of the Complainant’s products. The Respondent has carried the
Complainant’s products for over 6 years and have learned everything about them
possible. The Respondent offers this service to the customer and gives the
Complainant’s company telephone number or web addresses at the
<zylissagusa.com> and <zylissag.com> domain names to all customers
who have in depth questions it does not feel comfortable answering. The
Respondent also gives customers the Complainant’s telephone number as a source
of parts as the Respondent does not carry parts for the Complainant’s products.
The Respondent has also referred potential retailers of the Complainant’s
products to the Complainant potentially reducing the Respondent’s
business.
The
Respondent’s web site only increases the Complainant’s sales and reputation and
is in good faith not bad faith. The Complainant is in bad faith by trying to
take zylissonline.com from the Respondent. This will give the Complainant a
retail customer base built up by the Respondent over past years. The
Complainant has no right to take away what they did not create. If they do not
wish to use the site for retail sales the Complainant has no legitimate
interest in the site. They will not profit in any way if they do not use the
site for retail.
The
Gourmet Kitchen or <gourmet.org> is known worldwide. The Respondent has
distributed to 35 countries and all 50 states. It has over 1500 individuals
accessing its sites daily, with approximately 1,500 internet sessions per month
for the <zylissonline.com> site. December 2002 there were 2252
sessions for <zylissonline.com>. Accordingly, the Respondent has
created a credible clientele. The Respondent is commonly known on the
Internet.
The
Respondent does not wish to mislead customer into thinking they are dealing
with the Complainant which is why it uses a disclaimer on its site. The only
benefit the Respondent gains from the
domain name is that some search engines tend to favour domain names with the
search term in them. This also tells the retail customer that they have found
what they are looking for.
The
Respondent has not used the name for commercial gain by confusing or misleading
the customer into thinking they are dealing directly with the Complainant.
The
Respondent has worked hard to sell Zyliss products in an honest manner and
spent thousands on advertising for the companies it represents. It regards the attempt by the Complainants
to recover the domain name and its non negotiable demands for its return as a
slap in the face. The Complainant advertises amazon.com on its site as a
distributor of its products even though Amazon does not sell the full range.
The Respondent carries the complete line which is what customers want. The
Complainant’s approach to the Respondent’s web site is short sighted for the
Complainant’s own business.
The
Respondent makes it clear to customers that it is not the Complainant. In the
past the Respondent has linked to the Complainant’s site but does not do so
presently as the Complainant’s site refers customers to <amazon.com>.
C. Complainant’s Additional Submission
The
Panelist summarizes the additional submissions to the extent that they do not
repeat submissions already substantially covered by the Complaint.
The
Respondent did not answer the allegations in the Complaint and the Response did
not contain any basis for retention of the domain name. The Respondent did not
provide a certified response or execute its response in accordance with the
Rules.
The
Respondent is using the Complainant’s Zyliss mark without the Complainant’s
permission and in the face of its objection. There is no franchise, service,
agency, dealership, distribution or representative agreement between the
parties that would permit such use.
The
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Rather it is
known as The Gourmet Kitchen Inc.
The
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is likely to attract customers who
wish to deal directly with the Complainant.
D.
Respondent’s
additional submission
The
Panelist summarizes the additional submissions to the extent that they do not
repeat submissions already substantially covered by the Response.
“Online.com”
is the e commerce equivalent of “shop” or “store”. It is considered nothing
more by the consumer than a site selling retail products.
The
Complainant has only complained about <zylissonline.com> after 3
years after increasing growth of sales.
Retailers
can use the Zyliss mark in their stores on point of sale material and
catalogues. Zylissonline.com is an online store connected to a bricks and
mortar store. Zylissonline.com is simply using the best methods to advertise
and promote Zyliss products to the Zyliss retail customer.
The
Respondent does not compete with the Complainant as the Complainant does not
sell its product retail.
The
Respondent did not register any domain name including only the company name
Zyliss.
E.
Complainant’s
additional submission
The
Panelist summarizes the additional submissions to the extent that they do not
repeat submissions already substantially covered by the Complainant.
To
take the Respondent’s argument regarding the “online” element of the disputed
domain name to its logical conclusion would be to mean they could not take
action in the real world if a third party set up a bricks and mortar business
called “Zyliss shop” or “Zyliss store”.
The
Respondent has not provided any proof of money spent on advertising and even if
it did the Respondent cannot gain rights in something illegally appropriated in
this way.
The
Zyliss mark is not given to all retailers. Certain permitted uses of the Zyliss
mark are expressly granted as the Complainant chooses. However, all permitted
uses are carefully controlled and consistent with the Complainants’s marketing
plan. It is for the Complainant not the Respondent to decide how best to use
the Complainant’s mark.
DISCUSSION
The
Complainant has submitted that the Response was formally deficient and
therefore the Panel should decline to accept the Respondent’s submission.
Clearly it is desirable that any Response should observe the formalities of the
rules, however, the Complainant has put in two additional responses (the second
additional response which was not timely and yet considered in the panelist’s
discretion) and apart from the assertion that the Respondent has not proved any
advertising spend the Complainant does not dispute the facts in the
Respondent’s Response and additional submission and does not suggest the
Response was not signed because it contained information which was not
accurate. The panelist agrees with the decision in Strum v Nordic Net
Exchange AB, FA 102843 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2002) “ruling a response
inadmissible because of formal deficiencies would be an extreme remedy not
consistent with the basic principles of due process.” Accordingly, all submissions by the Parties in this matter have
been considered by the Panelist.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
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.
The Respondent does not dispute the
Complainant’s rights in the mark Zyliss. The Respondent suggests that the
“online” element of the domain name simply suggests to a customer a retail
products site. The Panelist finds that the domain name consists of the
Complainant’s trademark plus the generic term “online” for the Internet which
does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant’s mark.
Accordingly, the domain name registered by the Respondent is confusingly
similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Criteria set out in
the Policy whereby a Respondent can demonstrate its rights or legitimate
interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy
include:
“(i) before any
notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use,
the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an
individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the
domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate
non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial
gain to mistakenly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark of service mark at
issue.”
There is no evidence that the Respondent
is commonly known as <zylissonline.com>. However, the Respondent
has demonstrated that since January, 2001 when it registered the domain name and
before the Complaint was issued it used the domain name in connection with a
bona fide offering of genuine Zyliss goods and importantly has not used the
domain name in relation to any goods which were not genuine Zyliss goods.
Accordingly the Panelist holds that the Respondent has demonstrated a right or
legitimate interest to the domain name under the Policy. This, of course, is
likely to be irrelevant for the purposes of the application of trademark or
unfair competition law to this factual situation in any Court.
Since the Complainant must satisfy all
three limbs of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy but has failed to show that the
Respondent had no legitimate interest in the domain name under the Policy,
there is no need for the Panelist to make any finding under the third limb of
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy re registration and use in bad faith.
DECISION
The
Complainant’s request to have the domain name <zylissonline.com>
transferred to the Complainant under the Policy is hereby DENIED.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: July 24, 2003.
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page