Conrad Rice Mill, Inc. v. Valerie Jones
Claim Number: FA1703001721849
Complainant is Conrad Rice Mill, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Robert Waddell, Louisiana, USA. Respondent is Valerie Jones (“Respondent”), represented by Carol Bell, Unspecified Attorney Location.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <konriko.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 15, 2017; the Forum received payment on March 15, 2017.
On March 16, 2017, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <konriko.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On March 17, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 6, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@konriko.com. Also on March 17, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 4, 2017.
Complainant’s Additional Submission was received and determined to be in compliance with the Rules on April 7, 2017.
Respondent’s Additional Submission was received and determined to be in compliance with the Rules on April 10, 2017.
On April 29, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a retailer and distributor of rice and seasoning products. Complainant uses the KONRIKO mark in conjunction with its business. Complainant registered the KONRIKO mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (”USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,111,438, registered Jan. 16, 1979). Respondent’s <konriko.com> is identical to Complainant’s KONRIKO mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <konriko.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the KONRIKO mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. The KONRIKO mark is a fanciful term that lacks meaning beyond identifying Complainant’s products. Furthermore, Respondent’s <konriko.com> resolves to a webpage purporting to offer information on different types of businesses, but currently only has a reference to raccoon removal, which is unrelated to Complainant’s products.
Respondent registered and is using <konriko.com> in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name after Complainant inadvertently failed to renew the domain name’s registration.
B. Respondent
Respondent is the current owner of <konriko.com>. The disputed domain name is not identical to the KONRIKO mark because the domain is not being used to sell products similar to Complainant. Respondent has rebranded the website as a business website. Respondent’s <konriko.com> does not incorporate Complainant’s logo or original branding.
Respondent has legitimate rights and interests to <konriko.com>. Respondent’s use of the domain name does not conflict with Complainant’s business. Complainant uses <www.conradrice.com> as their main business site. Furthermore, Respondent’s use and content of <konriko.com> is within the purview of Respondent and “is of no concern to the Complainant.”
Respondent did not register or use <konriko.com> in bad faith. Respondent purchased the disputed domain through an auction following the expiration of Complainant’s registration of the domain name. Respondent has “every legal right to purchase and own [the disputed domain name], and it was not purchased with the intent to hold and try to sell it back to [Complainant], although it is within their right to do so.”
C. Complainant’s Additional Submission
Complainant contests the validity of Respondent’s authorized representative “Carol Bell” and the role that individual has in this proceeding. Complainant made additional assertions indicating that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith, presumably with the intent to sell the domain back to Complainant. Furthermore, Complainant contends that its inadvertent failure to renew the domain name does not excuse Respondent’s bad faith registration.
D. Respondent’s Additional Submission
Respondent indicates that “Carol Bell” is a legitimate person and the authorized representative of Respondent. Furthermore, the authorized representative has been responsible for the purchase of <konriko.com> and adding content to the website on the behalf of Respondent. Respondent continues to assert rights to the purchase of the disputed domain name and that its registration of <konriko.com> is not in bad faith. Respondent doubts the veracity of Complainant’s assertions that it did not receive notifications of the domain registration’s expiration. Respondent says “Having purchased domains for years, many of them from GoDaddy, I know from experience that they send multiple emails, starting at least one month before the renewal is even due.” Respondent asserts no “bad intentions” or “illegal intent” through the purchase of <konriko.com>.
Complainant, Conrad Rice Mill, Inc., is a retailer and distributor of rice and seasoning products. Complainant uses the KONRIKO mark in conjunction with its business. Complainant has rights in the KONRIKO mark through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,111,438, registered Jan. 16, 1979). Respondent’s <konriko.com> is identical to Complainant’s KONRIKO mark.
Respondent, Valerie Jones, registered the <konriko.com> domain name on January 18, 2017.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <konriko.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the KONRIKO mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent’s <konriko.com> resolves to a webpage purporting to offer information on different types of businesses, but currently only has a reference to raccoon removal, which is unrelated to Complainant’s products.
Respondent registered and is using <konriko.com> in bad faith.
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."
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 rights in the KONRIKO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration with USPTO. See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (USPTO registrations are sufficient to show a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <konriko.com> is identical to Complainant’s KONRIKO mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the “.com” gTLD. Respondent contends that the disputed domain name is not identical to the KONRIKO mark because the domain is not being used to sell products similar to Complainant. Respondent claims she has rebranded the website to be a business website. Respondent asserts that her <konriko.com> does not incorporate Complainant’s logo or original branding.
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) only concerns the rights of a complainant in or to a mark, and whether the arrangement of letters/symbols in a domain name are identical/confusingly similar. See generally Porto Chico Stores, Inc. v. Zambon, D2000-1270 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2000) (stating that the panel should resolve whether a mark is identical or confusingly similar “by comparing the trademark and the disputed domain name, without regard to the circumstances under which either may be used”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <konriko.com> is identical to Complainant’s KONRIKO mark.
Complainant maintains that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in <konriko.com>. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the KONRIKO mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information lists “Valerie Jones” as registrant. A respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA 198969 (Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (Given the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name, the Panel may infer that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.)
Complainant asserts that the KONRIKO mark is a fanciful term that lacks meaning beyond identifying Complainant’s products. “The more distinctive the trademark is, the greater its influence in stimulating sales, its hold on the memory of the purchaser and the likelihood of associating similar designations on other goods with the same source.” Auto-trol Tech. (Canada) Ltd. v. Yuen Wei, FA 151121 (Forum May 1, 2003). In such circumstances, Panels have determined that “[r]espondent is unlikely to have any legitimate connection with the . . . mark, and [is unable] to establish rights in the [disputed] domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).” Id.
Complainant contends that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <konriko.com> resolves to a webpage purporting to offer information on different types of businesses, but currently only has a reference to raccoon removal, which is unrelated to Complainant’s products. See Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to [c]omplainant's business does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”).
Respondent maintains that she has legitimate rights and interests to <konriko.com>. Respondent contends that her use of the domain name does not conflict with Complainant’s business. Respondent argues that her use and content of <konriko.com> is within the purview of Respondent and “is of no concern to the Complainant.” Respondent further argues that she has “every legal right to purchase and own [the disputed domain name], and it was not purchased with the intent to hold and try to sell it back to [Complainant], although it is within their right to do so.”
Respondent has refused to describe her use of the domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <konriko.com> pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using <konriko.com> in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent registered the domain name after Complainant inadvertently failed to renew the domain name’s registration, thereby showing bad faith registration. Complainant claims that it registered and had been using the <konriko.com> domain name since December 7, 1999. When the registration lapsed in January 2017, Respondent registered the domain name in her name on January 18, 2017.
Respondent maintains that she did not register and use <konriko.com> in bad faith. Respondent purchased the domain name through an auction following the expiration of Complainant’s registration of the domain name.
Panels have held that the complainant’s prior registration and use of the disputed domain name and the respondent’s registration of the domain name immediately after the complainant failed to timely renew its registration “gives rise to an inference of registration in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” RH-Interactive Jobfinance v. Mooburi Servs., FA 137041 (Forum Jan. 16, 2003). Additionally, “[w]here the domain name registration was previously held, developed and used by Complainant, opportunistic registration of the domain name by another party indicates bad faith, absent any justification that illustrates legitimate use.” Aurbach v. Saronski, FA 155133 (Forum May 29, 2003).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using <konriko.com> in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <konriko.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: April 29, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page