Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Jollibee Foods Corporation, Pasig City, PHILLIPPINES ("Complainant"). The Respondent is Graham Chrystman, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "jollibee.com", registered with Network Solutions.

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) is the Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("The Forum") electronically on September 7, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 5, 2000.

On September 7, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name "jollibee.com" is registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy ("Policy").

On September 12, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 2, 2000 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@jollibee.com by e-mail.

On October 9, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a one member panel, the Forum appointed Judge Irving H. Perluss (Retired) as Panelist.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

1. Complainant is a publicly listed international company incorporated in the Philippines. It is the owner of the mark "JOLLIBEE," which it has used in commerce since 1978. There are international registrations for the mark in many countries, all of which predated Respondent’s registration of the domain name on March 28, 2000. The domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. Complainant uses its mark to identify a unique fast-food restaurant concept with sales in 1999 from its numerous outlets exceeding $331,000,000.

2. Respondent has no legitimate reason for registering the domain name in issue, and it has not registered the mark "JOLLIBEE" in any part of the world.

3. Respondent has not used the domain name or a similar name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

4. Respondent has not been commonly known or associated with the name "JOLLIBEE."

5. It can be inferred that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith for the purpose of attracting for commercial gain visitors to its website, and creating confusion as to the sponsorship by Complainant.

B. Respondent

1. Respondent does not contend that the domain name in issue is not identical to Complainant’s mark.

2. The domain name was registered because it is associated with the nickname of Respondent’s wife, who has been called by that name since 1974. It is not being used with respect to sales of goods or services.

3. The domain name is not being used, nor will it be used, for commercial gain. It was registered without knowledge of the Complainant and without malicious intent.

1. Respondent registered the domain name "jollibee.com" with Network Solutions on March 28, 2000, prior to any attempted registration by Complainant.

2. Complainant’s registration of its marks in many countries, however, predated the registration of the domain name by Respondent.

3. Complainant is a publicly listed international company operating unique fast-food restaurants. Its sales for 1999 exceeded $331,000,000.

4. Complainant’s mark is famous, and, thus, it is entitled to the higher protection afforded it by law.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("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.

It is conceded that the domain name in issue is identical to Complainant’s mark.

Section 4c of the Policy sets forth the certain circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which will demonstrate a Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name in issue, as follows:

Respondent claims that it falls within (iv) above, because it is making a noncommercial use of the domain name in issue. It is a family nickname, and it is only used as such by family and friends for that purpose.

There is no evidence suggesting anything to the contrary.

Thus, Respondent does have a legitimate interest and rights to the domain name pursuant to the Policy above.

The Panelist has considered the circumstances, which, without limitation, for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, would be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith as follows:

There is no evidence supporting this factor, and it is denied by Respondent.

There is no evidence supporting this factor. In any event, there is no evidence of a pattern of such conduct.

There is no evidence supporting this factor.

There is no evidence supporting this factor.

Respondent expressly denies that it is using the domain name in issue for "commercial gain." It sells no goods or services.

Thus, the Panelist is required to find that Respondent has not registered or used the domain name in bad faith. He, apparently, wants to continue using it as his e-mail address. In the last analysis, accordingly, it is first come, first served.

The claim of Complainant Jollibee Food Corporation against Graham Chrystman seeking to have the domain name "JOLLIBEE.COM" transferred to it, be and the same, is hereby denied.