; WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case No
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case No


  • pg 1
									                WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


          HBH, Limited Partnership v. Caribbean Online International Ltd.

                                  Case No. D2006-1454

1.   The Parties

     The Complainant is HBH, Limited Partnership, Norcross, Georgia,
     United States of America, represented by Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP,
     United States of America.

     The Respondent is Caribbean Online International Ltd., Nassau, BS, Bahamas.

2.   The Domain Name and Registrar

     The disputed domain name <thehoneybakedhamcompany.com> is registered with
     BelgiumDomains, LLC.

3.   Procedural History

     The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
     (the “Center”) on November 13, 2006. On November 15, 2006, the Center transmitted
     by email to BelgiumDomains, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection
     with the domain name at issue. On November 15, 2006, BelgiumDomains, LLC
     transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the
     Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the
     administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint
     satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
     Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
     (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
     Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

     In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the
     Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 21, 2006.
     In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was

                                           page 1
     December 11, 2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the
     Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 12, 2007.

     The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on
     January 17, 2007. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has
     submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and
     Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules,
     paragraph 7.

4.   Factual Background

     The Complainant owns three trademarks registered in the United States of America for
     the name THE HONEYBAKED COMPANY. It has a number of other such marks for
     the name THE HONEYBAKED HAM COMPANY EST. 1957 going back to 1996. It
     also has numerous registered trademarks beginning with the words “honey”, “baked”
     “ham” and “company” and others which contain the expression “honey baked ham” in
     various forms. The Complainant and its licensees use these marks to sell about $200
     million worth of honeybaked ham and other related products. They have sold their
     products over the Internet since 1995. On October 2002, the Complainant registered
     the domain name <honeybakedhamcompany.org>.

5.   Parties’ Contentions

     A.   Complainant

     These are the Complainant’s contentsion. The Complainant and its licensees use the
     trademarks to sell honey baked ham products. The domain name in issue is confusingly
     similar to all of the company’s honey baked ham related trademarks. In particular, the
     domain name reproduces in its entirety the Complainant’s HONEYBAKED HAM
     COMPANY trademark. Given the widespread fame of the Complainant’s honey baked
     ham trademarks, consumers will reasonably believe that the domain name is related to
     the Complainant. The Complainant’s adoption and extensive use of the honey baked
     ham marks far predates the first use of the domain name in issue. The Respondent has
     no relationship with the Complainant and has not been authorized to use any of its
     trademarks. The Respondent is using the domain name to divert traffic to a linking
     portal for profit.

     B.   Respondent

     The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6.   Discussion and Findings

     Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

          (i)    the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or
                 service mark in which it has rights; and
          (ii)   the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain
                 name; and

                                           page 2
      (iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A.    Identical or Confusingly Similar

The domain name in issue reproduces a registered trademark belonging to the
Complainant with only the addition of the word “.com” and by joining the primary
words in the Complainant’s trademarks together. The Panel finds that this renders the
domain name in issue confusingly similar to the Complainant’s THE HONEYBAKED
HAM COMPANY trademarks and those that add to that expression the words “Est.

B.    Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not have “honey baked” in its name. It does not produce “honey
baked” goods. It does not appear to trade under that name. There is no evidence that
the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to use any of its trademarks. The
Respondent has never asserted any rights or legitimate interests in the name. For these
reasons, on the basis of the evidence before the Panel and in the absence of a Response,
the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name.

C.    Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The domain name resolves to a website which currently offers click-throughs links to
websites offering various travel and financial services products.

The Respondent is not offering ham-related products through the domain name in issue.
The Respondent has not explained why it chose this particular domain name. One can
only infer from this that the Respondent selected the name of a ham producing
company of which it was aware and decided to use it to divert internet users to its own
site for commercial gain.

In another case, where the same Respondent used the Complainant’s trademark to
divert customers to its website, New Chapter Inc. v. Caribbean Online International
Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-1251, the Panel said:

      “The Respondent did not choose to register the domain name by
      accident. It simply misappropriated a domain name and used it to
      attract Internet users to offer them links to goods that compete with
      the Complainant’s, presumably for commercial gain (as click-through
      fees, advertising or otherwise). Given the use of the domain name
      made by the Respondent, such conduct falls within the type of bad
      faith registration and use contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv).
      In addition, it is difficult to conceive of any plausible actual or
      contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that
      would not be infringing or tarnishing the Complainant’s marks”.

For the same reasons, the Panel concludes that the domain name was registered and is
being used in bad faith.

                                       page 3
7.   Decision

     For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and
     15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name
     <thehoneybakedhamcompany.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

                                       Adam Samuel
                                       Sole Panelist

                                 Dated: February 9, 2007

                                           page 4

To top