National Arbitration Forum




Edible Brands, Inc. v. Stefan Schinzinger c/o Schinzinger Kellman

Claim Number: FA0902001246518



Complainant is Edible Brands, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Richard R. Michaud, of Michaurd-Duffy Group LLP, Connecticut, USA.  Respondent is Stefan Schinzinger c/o Schinzinger Kellman (“Respondent”), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA.



The domain name at issue is <> (the “Domain Name”), registered with Markmonitor Inc.



The undersigned certify that each has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Hon. Daniel B. Banks, Jr. and Hon. James A. Crary as Panelists, and Christopher Gibson as the Panel chair.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“Forum”) electronically on February 6, 2009; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on February 9, 2009.


On February 9, 2009, Markmonitor Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the Domain Name is registered with Markmonitor and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Markmonitor has verified that Respondent is bound by the Markmonitor 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 12, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of March 4, 2009 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 by e-mail.


A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 4, 2009.


An Additional Submission was received from Complainant on March 9, 2009 and found to be timely and complete pursuant to the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 7.


Although Respondent raised an objection that Forum Supplemental Rule 7 is inconsistent with the Policy Rule 12, Respondent nonetheless submitted its Response to Complainant’s Supplement, which was received on March 16, 2009 and found to be timely and complete according to the Forum's Supplemental Rule 7.  The Panel has decided that it will consider the parties’ additional submissions.


On March 12, 2009, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Daniel B. Banks, Jr., Hon. James A. Crary and Christopher S. Gibson as Panelists.



Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

The Complainant, Edible Brands, Inc., through various related entities, has been in business since 1998 providing fresh fruit that is cut into flower shapes and arranged in floral designs.  Complainant has spent significant sums advertising its business and has achieved great commercial success, with about 870 stores worldwide and many throughout the United States.


Complainant is the holding company for Edible Arrangements, LLC, which is the owner of the family of EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS trademarks, which have been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) over the last several years.  The earliest registration (for the mark EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS) dates from June 6, 2000, while the most recent registrations date from December 2008.  Complainant also states that January 2, 2009 is the date of first use and application for a trademark registration for EDIBLE BRANDS, a mark that would be virtually identical to the Domain Name.  Complainant’s primary website is located at


Complainant contends that Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to one or more of Complainant’s “EDIBLE” family of marks.  A dominant feature in the Complainant’s marks is the term EDIBLE.  The dominance of the EDIBLE portion of Complainant’s marks is established by Complainant’s attainment of international fame regarding the goods and services associated with Complainant’s EDIBLE family of marks.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks because it consists of the dominant EDIBLE term, along with the addition of the terms “BRANDS’ and “.com,” neither of which is sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s EDIBLE family of marks.


Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.  On January 19, 2009, Respondent transmitted an email to Complainant offering the Domain Name for sale for an amount of $20,000.  Such an offer for sale is evidence that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Complainant replied to Respondent’s offer by informing Respondent that their actions constitute cybersquatting. Complainant also expressed an interest in resolving matters amicably, but as of the date of filing the Complaint, Respondent had failed to reply.  Moreover, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s EDIBLE family of marks. In addition, Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor is Respondent using it for any bona fide offering of goods or services.  A WHOIS search for the Domain Name indicates that Respondent is known as Schinzinger Kellman. 


In addition, Complainant is not aware of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name by Respondent.  Respondent’s website associated with the Domain Name provides links to other websites including those of several of Complainant’s competitors.  Respondent’s website is essentially an online directory with pay-per-click links to many websites that provide services in direct competition with those of the Complainant.


Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith for commercial gain.  Complainant contends that in this case, Respondent was familiar with Complainant’s EDIBLE family of marks and has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks.  Respondent’s use of the website associated with the Domain Name is intended to infer sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website with or by Complainant.  Even if Respondent was unfamiliar with Complainant’s EDIBLE family of marks, Respondent is charged with constructive notice of the marks by Complainant’s applications for registration with the USPTO. As such, Respondent could have discovered the marks upon performing a trademark search.  Respondent’s intentional attempt to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks also establishes bad faith registration.  According to the Internet archive “Waybackmachine” (at the, Respondent registered the Domain Name on July 20, 2005, but did not initiate operation of a website until at least August 31, 2008.  Accordingly, Respondent failed to operate a website with the Domain Name for about three years and such non-use also constitutes bad faith. Finally, Respondent offered the Domain Name for public sale for an amount of $20,000, which is further evidence of bad faith.


B. Respondent

Respondent first contends that Complainant does not have “rights” in a trade or service mark that is identical or confusingly similar to the Domain Name.  Complainant claims to be a “holding company for the owner” of a number of federal trademark registrations.  Even if the Complainant, Edible Brands Inc., were shown to be some sort of “holding company” of Edible Brands LLC, there is no license, assignment, or other evidence of how the Complainant “has rights” in any of the trademarks owned by Edible Brands LLC.  In addition, the Complainant is the direct owner of US trademark application no. 77,642,519 for EDIBLE BRANDS, filed on January 2, 2009 and claiming a first use on that date.  The Complainant makes no attempt to explain why, in its role as a mere “holding company,” it purports to be the direct owner of this mark.  Respondent argues that the Complainant is no “holding company,” but instead is a separate legal entity formed for the purpose of providing a line of services that are distinctly different from the goods and services which are claimed to be provided by Edible Arrangements LLC, a non-party to this Proceeding.


With respect to Complainant’s pending trademark application for EDIBLE BRANDS, Respondent contends that it demonstrates nothing: a pending trademark application confers no enforceable rights.  Moreover, there can be no chronologically relevant rights claimed in the purported EDIBLE BRANDS mark, of which the Complainant claims first use in 2009, relative to the Domain Name registered by Respondent in 2005.  According to Respondent, the complaint is constructed to conceal that the Complainant is engaged in an entirely different line of business than that conducted by Edible Arrangements LLC.


The Respondent reviews the marks of Edible Brands LLC to show that a number of them bear a first use or registration date after the July 2005 date of registration of the Domain Name.  As for the earliest mark registration, US Supplemental Reg. No. 2356362 for EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS, which was registered on June 6, 2000, Respondent states that Complainant failed to mention that it was refused from the Principal Trademark Register, and the owner instead amended to the Supplemental Register, thus acquiescing in the USPTO’s determination that the term was not distinctive, but merely descriptive.  Through detailed review of the marks presented by Complainant, the Respondent claims that Complainant has produced only (i) a trademark registration (predating the Domain Name registration) that disclaims the EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS phrase as a whole, and (ii) another which was amended to the Supplemental Register after having been refused registration.


Respondent denies that these chronologically relevant marks are identical or confusingly similar to the Domain Name <>. The only thing these marks and the Domain Name have in common is the generic word EDIBLE.  According to Respondent, the question then becomes whether the marks confer a right in the word EDIBLE apart from the word ARRANGEMENTS or the various logo marks obtained. Respondent urges that, apart from its appearance in a compound mark, the term “edible” is not distinctive of the Complainant. Respondent has provided a print-out from the USPTO showing one hundred and twenty three pending or registered marks containing the word “EDIBLE” in connection with a variety of edible products or otherwise related to goods and services having to do with food.  The records of the USPTO demonstrate that the Complainant’s use of the word EDIBLE in connection with such products is neither exclusive, nor distinctive, nor famous.  Respondent thus contends that Complainant has provided no evidence that, apart from its compound or graphical marks, it is distinctively associated with the word “EDIBLE,” which is the sole common element of all of the Complainant’s claimed marks and the Domain Name (with the exception of the Complainant’s sole pending application for EDIBLE BRANDS claiming first use in January 2009).


With respect to rights or legitimate interests, Respondent emphasizes that the Policy expressly states that bona fide use of a domain name prior to notification of a dispute constitutes a legitimate interest.  The Respondents are a partnership consisting of Stefan Schinzinger and Sally Kellman, who are a husband and wife team of entrepreneurs which operate as “Schinzinger Kellman.”  In 1998, Respondents believed that nascent e-commerce on the Internet was likely to increase, and they conceived construction of a network of generic portals that would promote branded products in various categories of trade. In 1998, they registered their first domain name for this project, <>, and since then they have accumulated a portfolio of hundreds of “-brand” formative domain names, including many food-related domains, such as,,,,,,,,,, and others.  Respondents have been prodigious registrants of “-brand” formative domain names. All of the Respondent’s domain names are registered through the registrar, MarkMonitor, which caters specifically to the branding community and brand-conscious domain registrants.  Early on, Respondents set out associating these “brand portals” with relevant categories of goods or services through direct affiliate advertising.  Respondent has, at various times, used, leased, or sold various brand formative domain names in connection with promotional campaigns by others in relevant industries.


Prior to mid-2006, the Respondent used the Domain Name in connection with affiliate links to food related products sold by  In mid-2006, Respondent connected the Domain Name with the current pay-per-click type of arrangement.  The page now connected with the Domain Name is substantially unchanged since 2006.  The page at

<> unsurprisingly states “” and has links to categories of food products.  Those links, in turn, act as search terms for displays of vendor-specific ads relating to those search terms.  The page also includes a search box, and this feature is crucial to understanding Complainant’s other alleged “pages” generated at the Respondent’s website.  It is not clear what search terms the Complainant used to generate a display of competitive products, but it is also irrelevant. The search function retrieves search results relating to things edible.  With particular reference to the Complainant’s competitors, the term “edible” is freely used by other vendors in connection with edible bouquets of fruit in the manner of floral arrangements, such as:


- Fresh Fruit Bouquet Company, at, which sells “Fresh fruit bouquet

arrangements specially designed as edible fruit flowers.”


-, which sells “Edible Fruit Flower Bouquets.”


-, which sells “Edible Flower Arrangements.”


Respondent argues that these parties are not infringing on an EDIBLE trademark by selling edible products, because the term refers to a generic class.  The Respondent has every right to use a Domain Name indicating “Edible Brands” to provide advertisements to brands of products which are edible – including the class of products known variously as edible floral bouquets or edible flowers, in which the term EDIBLE is used by multiple vendors of that type of common gift item.  Again, this is because Complainant demonstrably does not have an exclusive right in the word “edible” in connection with that type of product, and there are multiple brands of the type of edible product offered by Complainant.  Respondent gives the example of another US federal trademark owner, INCREDIBLY EDIBLE DELIGHTS, located at <>.  Hence, the Respondent’s page, even when manipulated by search terms, is legitimately producing advertisements for edible brands of products, including fruit floral arrangements which compete with the Complainant’s products.


Regarding bad faith, Respondent argues that the bad faith criterion is directed to an inquiry about why a respondent registers a particular domain name.  One can ask, did the respondent register the domain name with an intent to target or usurp the goodwill of the complainant, or was the respondent motivated by an independent intent, unrelated to the complainant?  In this case, the Respondent argues that it falls into the latter category.  As noted above, Respondent has engaged in a campaign of registering a number of generic words and phrases, appending the word “brand,” and using the resulting domain names in connection with the indicated category of goods.  Respondent has been using the Domain Name since registration in 2005, and while the Respondent regrets not having a screen copy of the page as it appeared in 2005, the traffic statistics from 2006 render the Complainant’s allegation of non-use to be factually false. Moreover, it is clear that the Complainant in this proceeding has filed a single trademark application in 2009, claiming first use in 2009, for “EDIBLE BRANDS” for a line of services having nothing to do with the fruit baskets sold by Edible Arrangements LLC.  It is further clear that the Respondent’s home page provides search links to a variety of categories of edible products, which produce search results showing various brands of edible products.


Respondent argues that the most scurrilous accusation of the Complainant is that

Respondent, who had registered the Domain Name in 2005, did so with the intent to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant in 2009.  Respondent indicates that it could not have registered the Domain Name in 2005 with a bad faith intent toward a trademark application that would not be filed until 2009 and claiming use in 2009.  Further, Respondent, as the registrant and user of the Domain Name since 2005, had every right to offer it the Complainant, who had filed and claimed to begun use of the mark in 2009.  If the Complainant was not interested, Respondent had every right to continue using the Domain Name – as the senior user of the term “edible brands” – in the same manner it had been using it for several years.


Respondent also asserts that Complainant deceptively omitted certain correspondence between the parties, which further demonstrates that the Domain Name was not

“registered for the primary purpose” of selling it the Complainant or a competitor.  In summary, the Respondent submits that:


1. It could not have registered the Domain Name in bad faith in 2005, relative to a

trademark application to be filed much later in 2009 with a date of first use in 2009.


2. The Complainant does not have rights in the word “Edible” with respect to fruit

gifts in the form of a floral arrangement in view of widespread third-party use of the term

“edible” for such products, including a wholly-unrelated US registered trademark owned by another party.


3. The Respondent is entitled to advertise and otherwise link to any brand of edible

product using the Domain Name<>, which can and does refer to any brand of product which is edible, including those which compete with Edible Arrangements LLC.


4. The deceptive correspondence by the Complainant and its agent in December and January of 2009 in no way demonstrates that the Domain Name was registered in 2005 for the primary purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor.


Accordingly, Complainant has not shown the Domain Name to have been registered and used in bad faith.


C. Additional Submissions


A summary of Complainant’s additional submission follows.  Complainant, Edible Brands, Inc., first responds that as the holding company of Edible Arrangements LLC, it has rights in all of Edible Arrangements LLC’s common law and registered trademarks.  Complainant has provided evidence that Tariq Farid is president of both companies, and that he and another principle officer and owner of Edible Arrangements LLC assigned their interests in this company to the Complainant.  Based on these links, Complainant contends that it has a sufficient nexus to and interest in the Domain Name.  Based on the foregoing, Respondent’s allegation that Complainant is a non-party to this proceeding should be ignored.


In response to Respondent’s arguments that Complainant lack rights in its trademarks which predate registration of the Domain Name in 2005, Complainant contends that it has trademark rights in the EDIBLE family of marks through its continuous and famous use of the term EDIBLE in its businesses since at least 1999, long before Respondent registered the Domain Name.  Complainant opened their first store in 1999 under the name Edible Arrangements.  A timeline of Complaints rapid rise to fame with events pre-dating Respondent’s 2005 registration of the Domain Name is as follows:

           2001 first franchise opens

           2002 four additional franchises open

           2002 Edible Arrangements’ business concept was featured in “Inc.” magazine

           2003 Edible Arrangements was listed in the Wall Street Journal

           2003 Edible Arrangements featured on Food Network’s Top Five Program

           2003 32 locations open in the U.S. and Canada

           2004 Edible Arrangements ranked 44th in Entrepreneur’s Franchise 500


Complainant’s continuous use of the EDIBLE ARRANGEMENT mark as a designator of the source of its goods and services since 1999 demonstrates its common law rights in the EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS mark.  In addition to common law rights in its mark, Complainant has numerous registrations for its “Edible Family of marks” that pre-date Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name.  Moreover, Complainant urges that Respondent has mis-stated relevant trademark law concerning the weight to be given to disclaimers: a disclaimer does not remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. The mark must still be regarded as a whole, including the disclaimed matter, in evaluating similarity to other marks.  Further, Respondent’s citation of third-party use of trademarks using the term “EDIBLE” is irrelevant because the Complainant’s registration of  EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS marks unequivocally establishes Complainant’s trademark rights. 


Complainant asserts that Respondent is not only a cyberpirate but a cyberpredator having hundreds of domain name registrations of potential trademark owners camouflaged with the generic term “brand.”  Moreover, Respondent is an experienced cybersquatter skilled at making an offer for sale under the guise of legitimacy.



Respondent’s additional submission is summarized below.  Respondent first indicates that, based on certain evidence in filings before the USPTO, Complainant improperly represented itself as “Edible Brands Inc.” prior to a recent name change which established the existence of such company.  While the Complainant may have been preparing to change its name, such intent does not suffice for the purpose of swearing to the USPTO that it was in existence on the date sworn in its recent January 2009 trademark application. 


Respondent also continues to challenge whether the Complainant, Edible Brands Inc., has demonstrated that it “has rights” in the marks or goodwill of Edible Arrangements LLC.  With respect to the assignment of the interests of two individuals to Complainant, while these individuals were apparently members of the Edible Arrangements LLC, we do not know whether they were the sole members and owners of this entity.  Respondent asserts that the documents submitted by the Complainant in this case do not even purport to convey any trade or service mark right to the Complainant, nor do they convey any license or enforcement interest in the marks of Edible Arrangements LLC to Complainant.  In order to find that the Complainant has rights in trade or service marks owned by Edible Arrangements LLC, the Panel will be required to invent facts not of record to show how such rights were conveyed, licensed or assigned to the Complainant.  To be clear, whether one company owns a controlling partial or complete interest in another company does not invest such company with rights to use or enforce the trade or service marks of the company so held.


Respondent recognizes that Edible Arrangements LLC has rights in the mark EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS as an indivisible whole.  However, Respondent continues to argue that the Complainant does not have rights in the term EDIBLE standing alone, and has no enforceable right in the term EDIBLE BRANDS.  Where the Complainant is claiming rights in something other than its registered mark, EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS, the Complainant must demonstrate the rights it is claiming.  Moreover, evidence that other parties in the exact same line of goods, such as Incredibly Edible Delights, Inc., use the constituent word EDIBLE, which the Complainant has excised from its registered mark, demonstrates that the word in question is not exclusive or distinctive of the Complainant’s goods or services in the relevant marketplace.


Respondent against refutes allegations that it registered the Domain Name in bad faith or should be considered a cyberpredator.  Respondent challenges the accusation that its registration of a collection of generic words affixed to the word “brand” as domain names operates to trump or otherwise infringe U.S. trademark law.  As in the Response, the Respondent requests the Panel to consider the Complainant’s candor with respect to the correspondence between the parties that Complainant did not disclose; for failing to disclose the date on which Edible Brands Inc. came into existence, relative to statements in the assignments and the date on its trademark application filed in January 2009; and failing to disclose the relationship between an individual who had approached the Respondent to inquire about purchase of the Domain Name and the Complainant’s principal, even after the Complainant’s prior omission of the correspondence was pointed out by Respondent in its previous submission.



The Complainant, Edible Brands, Inc., through various related entities, has been in business since 1998 providing fresh fruit that is cut into flower shapes and presented in floral arrangements. Complainant’s primary website is located at


With respect the Complainant’s pending trademark application for EDIBLE BRANDS, the application date and date of first use as specified by Complainant is January 2, 2009.


Respondent registered the Domain Name on July 20, 1995.



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.


Although the Respondent has raised questions concerning whether Complainant is the proper party with “rights” in the trademarks that have been relied upon in this case, the Panel need not decide this question.  Even assuming that the Complainant does have such rights, the Panel finds that the Domain Name (i) is not identical or confusingly similar to the EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS trademark, and (ii) was not registered and has not been used in bad faith.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

With respect to Complainant’s pending trademark application for EDIBLE BRANDS, which is closely similar to the Domain Name, the Panel agrees with the Respondent that this application confers no enforceable rights as against the Respondent.  As Complainant itself has stated in its complaint, the date of January 2, 2009 is the date of application and first use for this mark.  This is in contrast to Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name in July 2005.


The Panel does find that some of the trademarks relied upon by the Complainant – some of the EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS and related family of marks – pre-date registration of the Domain Name.  However, the Domain Name <> differs from Complainant’s EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS mark in three ways: (1) the term ARRANGEMENTS has been removed; (2) the descriptive term BRANDS has been added to the end of the term EDIBLE; and (3) the generic top-level domain “.com” has been added.  In this case, where the Respondent’s Domain Name has replaced the term ARRANGEMENTS with another non-synonymous, generic term, BRAND, the Panel finds that this change is sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name, <>, from the Complainant’s EDIBLE ARRANGEMENT mark, which must be taken as a whole.  In this respect, the Panel agrees with the Respondent’s contention to refute Complainant’s claim that EDIBLE is the dominant and distinctive portion of Complainant’s EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS mark.  The Panel finds that the term EDIBLE alone is not distinctive of the Complainant.  The comparison should be between the Domain Name and the EDIBLE ARRANGMENTS mark as an indivisible whole.


The Panel therefore finds that the <> Domain Name is not identical or confusingly similar to the EDIBLE ARRANGEMENTS marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Dollar Fin. Group, Inc. v. Oakridge, FA 94977 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2000) (finding that the domain names, <>, <>, <>, and <> are not identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY and CASH ‘TIL PAYDAY LOANS trademarks and service marks).     


When a panel concludes that a complainant has not satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the relevant trademark, the panel may decline to analyze the other two elements of the Policy.  See Creative Curb v. Edgetec Int’l Pty. Ltd., FA 116765 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 20, 2002) (finding that because the complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy, the complainant’s failure to prove one of the elements makes further inquiry into the remaining element unnecessary).  In this case, however, the Panel chooses to address the issue of bad faith.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Respondent has urged the Panel to consider an alleged lack of candor on the part of the Complainant.  In these proceedings based on documents alone, the Panel prefers not to do so.  The Panel observes only that the Respondent has submitted credible evidence that it has registered a portfolio of hundreds of “-brand” formative domain names, including many food-related domains incorporating the term BRAND.  The Panel finds that Respondent did not in any way target the Complainant or its trademarks when it registered its portfolio of domain names, including registration of the Domain Name in July 2005.  Nor should there be any constructive notice imputed against the Respondent as to Complainant’s EDIBLE ARRANGMENTS family of marks, particularly given that the Panel has found there is no confusing similarity between the Domain Name and those marks.  Finally, the circumstances by which the Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale to the Complainant for $20,000 do not, in this case, demonstrate that Respondent registered the Domain Name for the primary purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant.


The Panel therefore finds that Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen Graman Indus. Co., FA 133676 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that general allegations of bad faith without supporting facts or specific examples do not supply a sufficient basis upon which the panel may conclude that the respondent acted in bad faith).



Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.


Hon. Daniel B. Banks, Jr. and Hon. James A. Crary, Panelists

Christopher Gibson, Chairman

Dated: April 2, 2009


Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum