Kellogg Company and Kellogg North America
Company v. Henry Chan
Claim
Number: FA0402000237507
Complainants are
Kellogg Company and Kellogg North America Company (hereinafter “Complainant”), represented
by David R. Haarz of Harness, Dickey & Pierce, P.L.C., 11730 Plaza America Drive, Suite 600, Reston, VA 20190. Respondent is Henry Chan (“Respondent”), P.O. Box SS-6348/A124, Nassau, Bahamas.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <applejaks.com>, <fruittyloops.com>,
<frutiyloops.com>, <fruttyloops.com>, <kelloggsapplejacks.com>,
<kellogscornpops.com>, <kelloggcanada.com>, <kellogscerealcity.com>,
<kelloggsfrutloops.com>, <poptartes.com>, <thecolorfulworldoftoucansam.com>
and <toucansamy.com>, registered with Iholdings.Com, Inc. d/b/a
Dotregistrar.Com (hereinafter “Dotregistrar.com”).
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 February 17, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on February 20, 2004.
On
February 18, 2004, Dotregistrar.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain names <applejaks.com>, <fruittyloops.com>, <frutiyloops.com>,
<fruttyloops.com>, <kelloggsapplejacks.com>, <kellogscornpops.com>,
<kelloggcanada.com>, <kellogscerealcity.com>, <kelloggsfrutloops.com>,
<poptartes.com>, <thecolorfulworldoftoucansam.com>
and <toucansamy.com> are registered with Dotregistrar.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dotregistrar.com has
verified that Respondent is bound by the Dotregistrar.com 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
February 25, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of March 16, 2004 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@applejaks.com, postmaster@fruittyloops.com,
postmaster@frutiyloops.com, postmaster@fruttyloops.com, postmaster@kelloggsapplejacks.com,
postmaster@kellogscornpops.com, postmaster@kelloggcanada.com, postmaster@kellogscerealcity.com,
postmaster@kelloggsfrutloops.com, postmaster@poptartes.com, postmaster@thecolorfulworldoftoucansam.com
and postmaster@toucansamy.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
March 25, 2004, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s domain names are confusingly
similar to one or more of Complainant’s APPLE JACKS, FROOT LOOPS, KELLOGG’S,
KELLOGG’S CEREAL CITY, CORN POPS, POP-TARTS and TOUCAN SAM marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the disputed
domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant
Kellogg Company, through its wholly owned subsidiary Kellogg North America
Company (the second named Complainant in this dispute) is in the business of
manufacturing, distributing, marketing, advertising, selling and promoting ready-to-eat
cereals and convenience foods under a variety of federally registered marks,
many of which have been in use for decades. These marks include the APPLE JACKS
mark (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 817,917) the FROOT LOOPS mark (e.g. U.S.
Reg. No. 786,518), the KELLOGG’S mark (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 707,012), the
KELLOGG’S CEREAL CITY mark (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 2,316,185), the CORN POPS
mark (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 1,580,348), the POP-TARTS mark (e.g.
U.S. Reg. No. 791,514), and the TOUCAN SAM mark (e.g. U.S. Reg. No. 1,343,023).
Complainant also operates websites reflecting its marks at the
<applejacks.com>, <frootloops.com>, <kellogg.com>,
<kelloggs.com>, <kelloggscerealcity.com>,
<kelloggscornpops.com>, <poptarts.com> and <toucansam.com>
domain names.
Respondent, Henry
Chan, registered the disputed domain names between November 22, 2002 and
January 29, 2004, well after Complainant had began using and obtained
registrations for the above listed trademarks. Each of the disputed domain
names resolve to a generic seach engine webpage that lists the relevant
infringing domain name at the top of the page and then includes a search
box.
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 Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires that 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 Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(2) 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 has
established rights in the APPLE JACKS, FROOT LOOPS, KELLOGG’S, KELLOGG’S CEREAL
CITY, CORN POPS, POP-TARTS and TOUCAN SAM marks through registration of the
marks on the Principal Register of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as
well as through widespread use of the marks in commerce.
Respondent’s <applejaks.com>
and <kelloggsapplejacks.com> domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s APPLE JACKS mark. One of the domain names misspells
Complainant’s APPLE JACKS mark, while the other actually spells it correctly
and merely includes another of Complainant’s marks, the KELLOGG’S mark.
Likewise, Respondent’s <kellogscornpops.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s CORN POPS mark, although in this case
Respondent chose to misspell Complainant’s KELLOGG’S mark by omitting the
letter “g.” In a similar vein, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s
POP-TARTS mark in the <poptartes.com> domain name and
Complainant’s TOUCAN SAM mark in the <toucansamy.com> domain name
does not create domain names distinct from Complainant’s marks.
Respondent’s
also omitted the letter “g” from Complainant’s KELLOGG’S CEREAL CITY mark with
the <kellogscerealcity.com> domain name, and that domain too is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. With the <kelloggcanada.com>
domain name, Respondent omits the letter “s” from Complainant’s KELLOGG’S mark
and adds the geographical term “Canada,” which does not distinguish the domain
name from Complainant’s mark. Finally, Respondent’s addition of Complainant’s
KELLOGG’S mark to a misspelling of Complainant’s FROOT LOOPS mark in the <kelloggsfrutloops.com>
domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the
underlying marks. In each of these cases of misspelling Complainant’s marks,
combining Complainant’s marks, and adding words to Complainant’s marks,
Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to the marks they mimic. See
Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“the fact
that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is
sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the
Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA 95762
(Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and adding
letters to words, Respondent does not create a distinct mark but nevertheless
renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks); see
also Nintendo of Am. Inc v. Pokemon,
D2000-1230 (WIPO Nov. 23, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where respondent
combined Complainant’s POKEMON and PIKACHU marks to form the
<pokemonpikachu.com> domain name); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in
determining the similarity of a domain name and mark).
Respondent’s
<fruittyloops.com>, <frutiyloops.com> and <fruttyloops.com>
domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s FROOT LOOPS mark, in
that each of them take Complainant’s fanciful spelling of the word FROOT and
transform it into variations of the word “fruity.” See Modern Props, Inc. v.
Wallis, FA 152458 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2003) (“Notwithstanding the
analysis by Respondent, ‘modprops’ is a contraction or shorthand for “Modern
Props.” “Mod” cononotes [sic] ‘modern’ regardless of any other dictionary
meanings, so the names are substantially similar in meaning).
Finally,
Respondent’s <thecolorfulworldoftoucansam.com> domain name is
confusingly similar to Complainant’s TOUCAN SAM mark. The addition of the
phrase “The Colorful World Of” to Complainant’s mark, like it’s addition of the
word “Canada” to Complainant’s KELLOGG’S mark in the <kelloggcanada.com>
domain name, does not alter the fact that the dominant feature of the domain
name is Complainant’s mark. See Arthur
Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v.
Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity
where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of Complainant
combined with a generic word or term).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks under Policy
¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent uses
each of the disputed domain names to direct Internet users to generic search
engine websites, presumably for its own commerical gain. Because Respondent is
using unauthorized variations of Complainant’s marks for these purposes, its
use of the disputed domain names does not qualify for the protections afforded
Respondent by Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l Inc. v.
Chan, FA 154119 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 12, 2003) (finding that Respondent did
not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name that used
Complainant’s mark and redirected Internet users to website that pays domain
name registrants for referring those users to its search engine and pop-up
advertisements); see also Geoffrey, Inc. v. Toyrus.com, FA 150406 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2003) (finding that Respondent had no rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name that it used to redirect Internet users to an
Internet directory website).
As Respondent only appears to be known as “Henry Chan,” and has not come
forward with any evidence to rebut this presumption, the Panel finds that
Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply to Respondent either. See Tercent Inc. v.
Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in
Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’
the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
does not apply); see also Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union
Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO
Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where Respondent was
not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission
from Complainant to use the trademarked name).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain names under Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is
using each of the disputed domain names, all of which infringe on one or more
of Complainant’s marks, to ensnare Internet users into viewing generic search
engine websites, presumably for profit via pay-per-click fees. In registering
domain names that are variations of Complainant’s federally registered marks,
Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its websites through a
likelihood of confusion in the minds of those Internet users, and Respondent’s
attempt to imply that there is some sort of affiliation or endoresement of its
websites by Complainant is evidence that the domain names were registered and
used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(vi). See Bank of Am. Corp. v.
Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 3, 2003) (“[s]ince
the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s marks and
are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a
consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s
affiliation with the resulting search engine website.”); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where it
is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the disputed
domain names without creating a false impression of association with the
Complainant”).
The Panel thus
finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith, and that Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) is satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel
concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <applejaks.com>,
<fruittyloops.com>, <frutiyloops.com>, <fruttyloops.com>,
<kelloggsapplejacks.com>, <kellogscornpops.com>, <kelloggcanada.com>,
<kellogscerealcity.com>, <kelloggsfrutloops.com>, <poptartes.com>,
<thecolorfulworldoftoucansam.com> and <toucansamy.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
John
J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2004
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page