Kellogg Company and Kellogg North America
Company v. Horoshiy, Inc. a/k/a Horoshiy
Claim
Number: FA0409000320234
Complainants are
Kellogg Company and Kellogg North
America Company (collectively, “Complainant”), represented by David R. Haarz of Harness, Dickey &
Pierce, P.L.C., 11730 Plaza
America Drive, Suite 600, Reston, VA 20190.
Respondent is Horoshiy, Inc. a/k/a Horoshiy (“Respondent”), F.D. Rooseveltweg #518, Curacao, null,
N/A, AN.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <appaljacks.com>, <appeljackes.com>,
<appeljakes.com>, <appeljaks.com>, <appeljax.com>,
<applejcks.com>, <appljaks.com>, <applyjacks.com>,
<frootlops.com>, <frutieloops.com>, <kellogcereal.com>,
<kellogcornpop.com>, <kellogcornpops.com>, <kellogecornpops.com>,
<kellogescornpops.com>, <kelloggcornpops.com>, <kelloggescornpops.com>,
<kelloggscornpop.com>, <kelloggscornpuffs.com>, <kelloggsonline.com>,
<kelloggspops.com>, <kellogscornpop.com>, <kellogscornpopcereal.com>,
<kellogscornpopscereal.com>, <kellogscornpopps.com>, <kellogscornpopceral.com>,
<kellogscornpuffs.com>, <kellogsmexico.com>, <kellogspops.com>,
<kelogcornpops.com>, <keloggcornpops.com>, <keloggscornpops.com>,
<kelogscornpops.com> and <wwwkelloggscornpops.com> (“disputed
domain names”), registered with Nameking.com, 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.
Hon.
Ralph Yachnin as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum")
electronically on September 1, 2004; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on September 3, 2004.
On
September 14, 2004, Nameking.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain names <appaljacks.com>, <appeljackes.com>,
<appeljakes.com>, <appeljaks.com>, <appeljax.com>,
<applejcks.com>, <appljaks.com>, <applyjacks.com>,
<frootlops.com>, <frutieloops.com>, <kellogcereal.com>,
<kellogcornpop.com>, <kellogcornpops.com>, <kellogecornpops.com>,
<kellogescornpops.com>, <kelloggcornpops.com>, <kelloggescornpops.com>,
<kelloggscornpop.com>, <kelloggscornpuffs.com>, <kelloggsonline.com>,
<kelloggspops.com>, <kellogscornpop.com>, <kellogscornpopcereal.com>,
<kellogscornpopscereal.com>, <kellogscornpopps.com>, <kellogscornpopceral.com>,
<kellogscornpuffs.com>, <kellogsmexico.com>, <kellogspops.com>,
<kelogcornpops.com>, <keloggcornpops.com>, <keloggscornpops.com>,
<kelogscornpops.com> and <wwwkelloggscornpops.com>
are registered with Nameking.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the names. Nameking.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is
bound by the Nameking.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
September 23, 2004, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting
a deadline of October 13, 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@appaljacks.com, postmaster@appeljackes.com,
postmaster@appeljakes.com, postmaster@appeljaks.com, postmaster@appeljax.com, postmaster@applejcks.com,
postmaster@appljaks.com, postmaster@applyjacks.com, postmaster@frootlops.com, postmaster@frutieloops.com,
postmaster@kellogcereal.com, postmaster@kellogcornpop.com, postmaster@kellogcornpops.com,
postmaster@kellogecornpops.com, postmaster@kellogescornpops.com, postmaster@kelloggcornpops.com,
postmaster@kelloggescornpops.com, postmaster@kelloggscornpop.com, postmaster@kelloggscornpuffs.com,
postmaster@kelloggsonline.com, postmaster@kelloggspops.com, postmaster@kellogscornpop.com,
postmaster@kellogscornpopcereal.com, postmaster@kellogscornpopscereal.com, postmaster@kellogscornpopps.com,
postmaster@kellogscornpopceral.com, postmaster@kellogscornpuffs.com, postmaster@kellogsmexico.com,
postmaster@kellogspops.com, postmaster@kelogcornpops.com, postmaster@keloggcornpops.com,
postmaster@keloggscornpops.com, postmaster@kelogscornpops.com and postmaster@wwwkelloggscornpops.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 22, 2004, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Ralph Yachnin 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 <appaljacks.com>,
<appeljackes.com>, <appeljakes.com>, <appeljaks.com>,
<appeljax.com>, <applejcks.com>, <appljaks.com>,
<applyjacks.com>, <frootlops.com>, <frutieloops.com>,
<kellogcereal.com>, <kellogcornpop.com>, <kellogcornpops.com>,
<kellogecornpops.com>, <kellogescornpops.com>, <kelloggcornpops.com>,
<kelloggescornpops.com>, <kelloggscornpop.com>, <kelloggscornpuffs.com>,
<kelloggsonline.com>, <kelloggspops.com>, <kellogscornpop.com>,
<kellogscornpopcereal.com>, <kellogscornpopscereal.com>,
<kellogscornpopps.com>, <kellogscornpopceral.com>, <kellogscornpuffs.com>,
<kellogsmexico.com>, <kellogspops.com>, <kelogcornpops.com>,
<keloggcornpops.com>, <keloggscornpops.com>, <kelogscornpops.com>
and <wwwkelloggscornpops.com> domain names are confusingly similar
to Complainant’s KELLOGG’S, KELLOGS, APPLE JACKS, FROOT LOOPS and CORN POPS
marks.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or
legitimate interests in the <appaljacks.com>, <appeljackes.com>,
<appeljakes.com>, <appeljaks.com>, <appeljax.com>,
<applejcks.com>, <appljaks.com>, <applyjacks.com>,
<frootlops.com>, <frutieloops.com>, <kellogcereal.com>,
<kellogcornpop.com>, <kellogcornpops.com>, <kellogecornpops.com>,
<kellogescornpops.com>, <kelloggcornpops.com>, <kelloggescornpops.com>,
<kelloggscornpop.com>, <kelloggscornpuffs.com>, <kelloggsonline.com>,
<kelloggspops.com>, <kellogscornpop.com>, <kellogscornpopcereal.com>,
<kellogscornpopscereal.com>, <kellogscornpopps.com>, <kellogscornpopceral.com>,
<kellogscornpuffs.com>, <kellogsmexico.com>, <kellogspops.com>,
<kelogcornpops.com>, <keloggcornpops.com>, <keloggscornpops.com>,
<kelogscornpops.com> and <wwwkelloggscornpops.com> domain
names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <appaljacks.com>,
<appeljackes.com>, <appeljakes.com>, <appeljaks.com>,
<appeljax.com>, <applejcks.com>, <appljaks.com>,
<applyjacks.com>, <frootlops.com>, <frutieloops.com>,
<kellogcereal.com>, <kellogcornpop.com>, <kellogcornpops.com>,
<kellogecornpops.com>, <kellogescornpops.com>, <kelloggcornpops.com>,
<kelloggescornpops.com>, <kelloggscornpop.com>, <kelloggscornpuffs.com>,
<kelloggsonline.com>, <kelloggspops.com>, <kellogscornpop.com>,
<kellogscornpopcereal.com>, <kellogscornpopscereal.com>,
<kellogscornpopps.com>, <kellogscornpopceral.com>, <kellogscornpuffs.com>,
<kellogsmexico.com>, <kellogspops.com>, <kelogcornpops.com>,
<keloggcornpops.com>, <keloggscornpops.com>, <kelogscornpops.com>
and <wwwkelloggscornpops.com> domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant is in the business of manufacturing,
distributing, marketing, advertising, promoting and selling ready-to-eat
cereal, toaster pastries and convenience foods.
Complainant Kellogg North America Company is the owner of numerous
trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
including registrations for the KELLOGG’S (Reg. No. 707,012 issued November 8,
1960), KELLOGGS (Reg. No. 1,278,006 issued May 15, 1984), APPLE JACKS (Reg. No.
817,917 issued November 1, 1966), CORN POPS (Reg. No. 1,580,348 issued January
30, 1990) and FROOT LOOPS (Reg. No. 786,518 issued March 9, 1965) marks (the
“KELLOGG’S marks”).
Complainant Kellogg Company, which began business in 1906 and was
incorporated in 1922, assigned its United States trademarks to Complainant
Kellogg North America Company, its wholly owned subidiary. In the fiscal year ending December 27, 2003,
Complainant’s had sales of $8.81 billion worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed domain names on January 13, 2004. Respondent is using all the disputed domain
names, except the <kelloggscornpop.com> domain name,
to redirect Internet users to websites that display the infringing domain name
at the top as well as a generic search engine and “Popular” and “Related”
links. The <kelloggscornpop.com> domain name
was not yet active at the time the Complaint was filed.
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 in this proceeding that it has rights in the KELLOGG’S marks
through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and by
continuous use of its marks in commerce for the last forty-four years. See Men’s Wearhouse, Inc. v. Wick,
FA 117861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2002) (“Under U.S. trademark law,
registered marks hold a presumption that they are inherently distinctive and
have acquired secondary meaning.”); see also Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5,
2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which
creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this
assumption).
The <appaljacks.com>,
<appeljackes.com>, <appeljakes.com>, <appeljaks.com>,
<appeljax.com>, <applejcks.com>, <appljaks.com>,
<applyjacks.com>, <frootlops.com> and <frutieloops.com>
domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s APPLE JACKS and FROOT LOOPS marks because the domain names are
comprised of missepellings of the marks, which are almost phoenetically
identical to the marks. See Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO
June 27, 2000) (finding that the domain names <beanybaby.com>,
<beaniesbabies.com>, <beanybabies.com> are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s mark BEANIE BABIES); see also Victoria's Secret v. Internet Inv. Firm Trust, FA 94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding the domain
name <victoriasecret.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademark, VICTORIA’S SECRET); see also Reuters Ltd. v. Global Net 2000, Inc., D2000-0441 (WIPO July 13,
2000) (finding that a domain name which differs by only one letter from a
trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the trademark
where the trademark is highly distinctive).
Additionally,
the <kellogcereal.com>, <kellogcornpop.com>, <kellogcornpops.com>,
<kellogecornpops.com>, <kellogescornpops.com>, <kelloggcornpops.com>,
<kelloggescornpops.com>, <kelloggscornpop.com>, <kelloggscornpuffs.com>,
<kelloggsonline.com>, <kelloggspops.com>, <kellogscornpop.com>,
<kellogscornpopcereal.com>, <kellogscornpopscereal.com>,
<kellogscornpopps.com>, <kellogscornpopceral.com>, <kellogscornpuffs.com>,
<kellogsmexico.com>, <kellogspops.com>, <kelogcornpops.com>,
<keloggcornpops.com>, <keloggscornpops.com>, <kelogscornpops.com>
and <wwwkelloggscornpops.com> domain names registered by
Respondent are confusingly similar to Complainant’s KELLOGG’S and CORN POPS
marks because the domain names incorporate either misspellings or entire
versions of Complainant’s marks, adding only a generic, descriptive or geograpic
term or combinations of Complainant’s marks.
The misspelling of Complainant’s marks, the mere addition of terms and
the combination of Complainant’s marks are insufficient to negate the confusing
similarity of Respondent’s domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30,
2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or
confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark); see also AXA China Region Ltd. v. KANNET Ltd.,
D2000-1377 (WIPO Nov. 29, 2000) (finding that common geographic qualifiers or
generic nouns can rarely be relied upon to differentiate the mark if the other
elements of the domain name comprise a mark or marks in which another party has
rights); 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).
Accordingly, the
Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant
alleges that Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain names, which
contain numerous combinations and misspellings of Complainant’s marks. Respondent’s failure to respond to the
Complaint allows the Panel to assume that Respondent lacks rights and
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of
its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such
rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(a)(ii). See G.D. Searle v.
Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 1, 2002) (holding that where
Complainant has asserted that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests
with respect to the domain name it is incumbent on Respondent to come forward
with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is
“uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also
Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)
(finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to
Respondent to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights
and legitimate interests in the domain name).
Furthermore,
where Complainant makes the prima facie showing and Respondent does not
respond, the Panel may accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the
Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009
(WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (stating that “[i]n the absence of a response, it is
appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”); see also
Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows
all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be
deemed true).
Respondent is
using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to websites that
display the particular domain name at the top of the page and feature a generic
search engine and various links to businesses and products and services
unrelated to Complainant. Respondent’s
use of numerous domain names that are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
KELLOGG’S marks to redirect Internet users interested in Complainant’s products
to commercial websites that offer a generic search engine and hyperlinks
unrelated to Complainant’s products and services is not a use in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names pursuant
to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Disney
Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum March 17, 2003)
(finding that Respondent’s diversionary use of Complainant’s mark to attract
Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to
unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names); see also
Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent Comm. Corp.,
FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding that use of Complainant’s
mark “as a portal to suck surfers into a site sponsored by Respondent hardly
seems legitimate”); see also Toronto-Dominion
Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d
110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because
Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to cause confusion
with Complainant's website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection
with the offering of goods or services or any other fair use).
Additionally,
Respondent has made no use of the <kelloggscornpop.com> domain name
and has submitted no evidence as to any demonstrable preparations to use that
domain name. Therefore, the Panel
determines that Respondent’s passive holding of the <kelloggscornpop.com> domain name is
evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB
v. Romero, D2000-1273
(WIPO Nov. 13, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where
Respondent failed to submit a Response to the Complaint and had made no use of
the domain name in question); see also Boeing Co. v. Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where Respondent has advanced no basis on which
the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the
domain names, and no use of the domain names has been established).
No evidence in
the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed
domain names and Complainant did not license or permit Respondent to use any of
its marks or register the disputed domain names. Therefore, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate
interests in the dispute domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA
96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to
require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to
registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).
Thus, the Panel
finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent
intentionally registered thirty-four domain names that contain combinations and
typosquatted versions of Complainant’s KELLOGG’S marks for Respondent’s
commercial gain. All but one of the
disputed domain names divert Internet users who seek Complainant’s KELLOGG’S
marks to Respondent’s commercial websites through the use of domain names that
are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
In this manner, Respondent is attempting to benefit from the goodwill
associated with Complainant’s marks.
Such a practice of diversion for commercial gain is evidence of bad
faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, Inc. v.
Petersons Auto., FA 135608 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 8, 2003) (finding that the
disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv) through Respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain
name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its fraudulent
website by using Complainant’s famous marks and likeness); see also G.D.
Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21,
2002) (finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because Respondent was using the confusingly
similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see
also Am. Online, Inc. v. Tencent
Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith
where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract users
to a website sponsored by Respondent).
Furthermore,
Respondent has failed to use the <kelloggscornpop.com> domain name for any discernable purpose,
which is evidence that it is passively holding the domain name. The Panel concludes that this is evdence of
bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., D2000-1232 (WIPO Dec. 7, 2000)
(concluding that Respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the
requirement of ¶ 4(a)(iii) of the Policy); see also Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000)
(finding that Respondent made no use of the domain name or website that
connects with the domain name, and that passive holding of a domain name
permits an inference of registration and use in bad faith).
In the present
case, Respondent has registered thirty-four domain names that infringe upon
Complainant’s KELLOGG’S marks by attempting to profit from the goodwill associated
with Complainant’s marks. Respondent’s
registration and use of thirty-four domain names confusingly similar to
Complainant’s marks demonstrates that Respondent had actual or constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its marks when the disputed domain names
were registered. Respondent’s
registration and use of the domain names despite actual or constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s rights evidences bad faith registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb.
11, 2002) (finding that "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he
knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see
also Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002)
(holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent
reasonably should have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or
constructively”).
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
relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <appaljacks.com>, <appeljackes.com>,
<appeljakes.com>, <appeljaks.com>, <appeljax.com>,
<applejcks.com>, <appljaks.com>, <applyjacks.com>,
<frootlops.com>, <frutieloops.com>, <kellogcereal.com>,
<kellogcornpop.com>, <kellogcornpops.com>, <kellogecornpops.com>,
<kellogescornpops.com>, <kelloggcornpops.com>, <kelloggescornpops.com>,
<kelloggscornpop.com>, <kelloggscornpuffs.com>, <kelloggsonline.com>,
<kelloggspops.com>, <kellogscornpop.com>, <kellogscornpopcereal.com>,
<kellogscornpopscereal.com>, <kellogscornpopps.com>, <kellogscornpopceral.com>,
<kellogscornpuffs.com>, <kellogsmexico.com>, <kellogspops.com>,
<kelogcornpops.com>, <keloggcornpops.com>, <keloggscornpops.com>,
<kelogscornpops.com>, <wwwkelloggscornpops.com>
domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Ralph Yachnin, Panelist
Justice, Supreme Court, NY (Ret.)
Dated: November 5, 2004
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page