P. O. Box 50191
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 USA

Samsonite Corporation



Colony Holding


Forum File No.: FA 0003000094313


The above-entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing on April 17, 2000, before the undersigned on the Complaint of Samsonite Corporation, hereafter "Complainant", against Colony Holding, hereafter "Respondent". Complainant, Samsonite appears by and through Gregory W. O'Connor, attorney and Respondent, Colony Holding appears through Jeffrey Kaplan.


Domain Name: Samsonite.org

Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions, Inc.

Domain Name Registrant: Colony Holding Ent. Inc. (Samsonite6.org)

Date of Domain Name Registration: October 29, 1998

Date Complaint Filed: March 13, 2000

Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceeding in Accordance with Rule 2(a) and Rule 4(c): March 17, 2000.

Due date for a Response: April 10, 2000.

After reviewing the Complaint, and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the National Arbitration Forum (The Forum) forwarded the Complaint to the Respondent on March 17, 2000 in compliance with Rule 2(a), and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c). In compliance with Rule 4(d), The Forum immediately notified Network Solutions, Inc. (Network Solutions), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Complainant that the administrative proceeding had commenced. The Respondent responded to The Forum by memorandum dated March 22, 2000, pursuant to Rule 5(a). I have concluded to not consider materials submitted by the parties after this date.

On October 29, 1998, Respondent registered the domain name "Samsonite.org" with Network Solutions, the entity that is the Registrar of the domain name. On March 13, 2000, Network Solutions verified that Respondent is the Registrant for the domain name "Samsonite.org", and that further by registering its domain name with Network Solutions, Respondent agreed to resolve any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN's Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.



  1. The Complainant is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of all manner of travel goods including luggage, clothing, umbrellas, leather goods, tables, chairs, luggage carts, luggage locks, pill organizers, travel clothing irons and other similar items and retain store services.
  2. The Respondent is an individual who states intent to use the domain name to establish a "non-commercial use web page showing comparative products". Respondent claims to have assigned the domain name to Peter George on December 29, 1999. This transfer has not been acknowledged by Network Solutions. Respondent is therefore a proper party to this action as no transfer can be accomplished until acknowledged by Network Solutions.
  3. Complainant holds the exclusive rights to at least sixty-four registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the use of the trademark "Samsonite". In addition, Complainant has registered the trademark "Samsonite" in countries throughout the world to protect the use of the "Samsonite" trademark.
  4. Complainant is registrant of the domain name "samsonite.com" and maintains an active web site using this trademark name.
  5. On October 29, 1998, Respondent registered the name "Samsonite.org" with Network Solutions, Inc. No use has been made of the name although at least three separate attempts have been made to transfer the subject domain name to others within the twelve-month period preceding the filing of this complaint.
  6. Respondent claims that his proposed use of the site is for "non-commercial purposes" and its content will be for "comparative advertising". Respondent's evidence is not sufficient to establish that his use is exempt from the Federal Trademark Division Act, to-wit:
    1. To establish an exempt use for comparative advertising or promotion, the proponent should identify their own competing goods or services;
    2. To establish non-commercial use, the proponent should be able to identify the non-commercial purpose and objectives for the use of the trademark in more detail than "comparative advertising";
    3. Comparison of advertising for products generally offered for retail sale is a commercial activity as it may affect the business of the concerns involved;
    4. Use of the domain name "Samsonite.org" does not reflect the proposed use described by Respondent. Naming a web site whose purpose is to compare advertising with the name of one of the companies to be displayed is not a neutral "comparative" use and is inconsistent with the concept of non-commercial use.
  7. The domain name in dispute is nearly identical and confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has established rights.
  8. Respondent has not established any right or legitimate interest with respect to the domain name "Samsonite.org".
  9. Respondent registered the domain name "Samsonite.org" in bad faith and has no legitimate interests in respect to said domain name. The following is evidence of bad faith:
    1. Respondent has shown no legitimate business interest in any product or service that uses the name "Samsonite";
    2. Respondent registered the commonly known trademark and business name of "Samsonite" with actual or constructive knowledge of its use by Complainant;
    3. That the domain name "Samsonite.org" would create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark and would dilute Complainant's right in the use of its trademark and established business name;
    4. Use of the domain name by Respondent would confuse, mislead and disrupt customers of Complainant's business;
    5. Respondent has sought payment from Claimant in exchange for transfer of the domain name which is in excess of his documented out-of-pocket expenses related to the domain name;
    6. Respondent has offered to at least two other parties to transfer the domain name which demonstrates a lack of intent or purpose to utilize the domain name to further his own legitimate business interests;
    7. The primary purpose for registering the domain name "Samsonite.org" is to disrupt the business of Complainant for the personal gain of Respondent.
  10. The Complainant's prayer for relief requests that the domain name "Samsonite.org" be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no known conflict of interest to serve as the Arbitrator in this proceeding. Having been duly selected, and being neutral, the undersigned makes the following DECISION:

  1. Based upon the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, I find the domain name registered by the Respondent is nearly identical or confusingly similar to the business name of the Complainant; that Respondent has no legitimate interest with respect to the domain name of "Samsonite.org"; that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith for the primary purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, the Complainant herein.


Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 4(i), it is decided that the domain name "Samsonite.org" should be transferred from Respondent to the Complainant.


Dated: April 17, 2000



Judge James P. Buchele (Retired)