|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Menard Inc.
dba Menards v. ZeBo Limited
Claim Number: FA0112000102973
PARTIES
The Complainant is Menard, Inc., Eau Claire, WI (“Complainant”) represented by Stephen R. Baird, of Fish & Richardson, P.C., P.A. The Respondent is ZeBo Limited, Fort Madison, IA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <menards.net>, registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Anne M. Wallace, Q.C., as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on December 14, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 17, 2001.
On December 17, 2001, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <menards.net> is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 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 December 17, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 7, 2002 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@menards.net by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 7, 2002.
Complainant's additional submissions were received on January 14, 2002. Respondent’s additional submissions were received on January 21, 2002. All submissions have been considered by the Panelist.
On January 22, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Anne M. Wallace, Q.C. as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
A. Complainant
Menard, Inc., d/b/a Menards (“Menards”) is the exclusive owner of nine (9) United States trademark and service mark registrations for the mark MENARDS registered and used in connection with a variety of products and services. Printouts from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s online database were filed in evidence.
Knowing of Menards’ exclusive rights in the MENARDS mark, Respondent ZeBo Limited registered the <menards.net> domain name in bad faith with the intent of capitalizing on Menards’ substantial goodwill in its MENARDS mark. Since Respondent registered the <menards.net> domain name it has (i) linked the <menards.net> website to Respondent’s commercial <Zebo.net> website, (ii) displayed third-party credit card advertisements, (iii) apparently linked to pornographic websites, and (iv) most recently, veiled the website as being a site devoted to fighting terrorism.
The Domain Name Registered By Respondent Is Identical Or Confusingly Similar To A Mark In Which Menards Has Rights
The domain name at issue is <menards.net>. The <menards.net> domain name is plainly identical and/or confusingly similar to the well-known and famous MENARDS mark.
Menards has well-settled rights in the MENARDS trademark and service mark by virtue of its nine U.S. trademark and service mark registrations and through its continuous use of the MENARDS mark for more than the last two decades throughout the Midwest United States. Menards is the only owner of a federal trademark or service mark pending application or existing registration for the MENARDS mark or a mark containing the MENARDS mark. Menards is reported as being the twenty-fifth largest privately held company in the United States and the third largest retail home improvement store chain in the United States. Menards uses its well-known and famous MENARDS mark in connection with a variety of goods and services including, retail store services, antifreeze and coolants, fertilizers, paint, paint thinner, clothing, and credit cards, among other goods and services. Menards is also the registrant of the <menards.com> domain name. Menards’ use and federal registration of the MENARDS mark long precedes Respondent’s July 14, 1998 registration of the <menards.net> domain name.
Not only is the <menards.net> domain name identical to a mark in which Menards has expansive rights, Respondent uses the confusingly similar MENARD’S term on the active website associated with the <menards.net> domain name in the same distinctive red color that Menards often uses to portray the MENARDS mark. Respondent not only appropriated the MENARDS mark for its benefit, it also portrays the mark in the same manner that Menards frequently displays its famous MENARDS mark.
Respondent has made a futile attempt to diminish the confusingly similar nature of the <menards.net> domain name by employing the statement “Not the lumber yard!!” under the dominant term MENARD’S, in much smaller type than the term MENARD’S appears. To the extent that Respondent believes that it can avoid liability by using this statement, it misunderstands the law. This statement is ineffective at diminishing the confusingly similar nature of the domain name for several reasons. First, it does not prevent Internet users from visiting Respondent’s website in the first place, which is exactly what Respondent wants to accomplish so it can increase the amount it charges for credit card advertising on the website and re-direct Internet users to its <Zebo.net> website. Second, the statement is factually inaccurate. Menards operates far more than a lumberyard. The MENARDS retail stores are full-service home improvement stores having the following departments: Hardware, Electrical, Plumbing/Housewares, Millwork, Building Materials, Wallcovering, Floor Covering, Seasonal, and Cabinets and Appliances. Only a portion of the Building Materials department comprises a lumberyard. Accordingly, Respondent’s statement is ineffective because it does not even attempt to distance the website from the services for which Menards is primarily known, namely home improvement retail store services. Third, because the statement only mentions the “lumber yard,” it suggests that Menards’ lumber portion of its Building Materials department might be independently operated and not affiliated with the other products and services that Menards offers.
Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, Respondent recognizes the confusingly similar nature of the <menards.net> domain name. In a telephone conversation with Menards’ counsel, Robert Kramer, the administrative contact for the domain name as well as the owner of ZeBo Limited, admitted to Menards’ counsel that the only reason he added this statement was to discourage customers of Menards from continuing to use the e-mail contact button on the <Menards.net> website to send him e-mail messages admittedly intended for Menards. Accordingly, Respondent recognizes and indeed has admitted that the <menards.net> domain name is actually confusing. Plainly, Respondent wants the confusion it has created in order to benefit from the increased traffic to the website. Respondent, however, does not want the burden of dealing with all the confused customers he has created. Not only does Respondent’s conduct further establish that the <menards.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Menards’ MENARDS mark, it indicates that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith.
Finally, to the extent that the “Not the lumber yard!!” statement functions as some sort of attempted disclaimer, many courts and commentators have concluded that disclaimers are generally ineffective at dispelling any potential confusion. For example, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that disclaimers are not effective in eliminating confusion,“[e]specially where the infringement in issue is a verbatim copying of the plaintiff’s name….” International Kennel Club v. Mighty Star, Inc., [1988] USCA7 489; 846 F.2d 1079, 1093 (7th Cir. 1988). See also Marquis Who’s Who, Inc. v. North American Advertising Assoc., 194 U.S.P.Q. 441, 443 n.5 (D. D.C. 1976)(“Nor is the Court satisfied that the use of a disclaimer by the Defendants is sufficient to eliminate this likelihood of confusion.”). Commentators have also criticized disclaimers. See Jacoby and Raskopf, Dislaimers in Trademark Infringement Litigation: More Trouble Than They are Worth, 76 TMR 35, 54 (Trademark Reporter Jan.-Feb. 1986)(concluding that disclaimers, “especially those which rely upon brief negator words such as ‘no’ or ‘not,’ have little impact on the consumers’ mental states…[and] are generally ineffective.”). Consistent with the aforementioned case law and commentary, Respondent’s feeble statement does not change the fact that the Respondent registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to a mark in which Menards has rights, nor does it change the fact that Respondent has acted in bad faith and profited from the confusion it has created.
Based on the foregoing, Section 4(a)(i) of the UDRP requiring that the domain name at issue be “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights,” is satisfied.
Respondent Has No Rights To Or Legitimate Interests In The Domain Name
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <menards.net> domain name. First, Respondent is not using and has never used the <menards.net> domain name and the “Menard’s” name for the bona fide purpose of directly selling any goods or providing any services. At the time counsel for Menards first objected to Respondent’s unauthorized registration and use of the <menards.net> domain name, the <Menards.net> website contained two commercial links, in addition to Respondent’s e-mail contact button. One link was an advertisement for a third-party’s high-interest credit card. The second link was to Respondent’s commercial homepage located at www.zebo.net where Respondent offered computer software products. Apart from these two commercial links and an e-mail contact button, the <Menards.net> website did not present a user with an opportunity to purchase any goods or services directly from the site. Visitors are not advised as to the purpose of the site, nor what its business is or might be in the future. A U.S. District Court has acknowledged that a domain name owner who merely uses a domain name to feature advertisements for other sites and credit card companies is not conducting a bona fide business. See Shields v. Zuccarini, 89 F.Supp.2d. 634, 635-40 (E.D. Pa. 2000). Therefore, the <menards.net> domain name, because it was used solely to redirect Internet users to other websites and not in connection with any bona fide business, was not legitimately used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods of services before notice of this dispute.
Second, Respondent is ZeBo Limited, the trade name adopted by Robert W. Kramer. Respondent is not commonly known, either as an individual, business, or other organization, by the “Menards” name. On the contrary, Respondent is known by and owns the domain name <zebo.net> and previously promoted its ZeBo Limited business there. There is simply no legitimate reason why Respondent registered the <menards.net> domain name when it already owns a domain that corresponds to the business name under which it operates. Respondent owns no state or federal trademark registrations or applications for the MENARDS mark. Furthermore, when asked why it chose to adopt the <menards.net> domain name, Respondent did not offer any rational explanation for doing so.
Finally, Respondent is not making a non-commercial fair use of the <menards.net> domain name or MENARDS mark. From at least May19, 2000 to at least February 1, 2001 the <Menards.net> website contained a link to the <Zebo.net> website, the website associated with Respondent’s software business. Throughout this same period, Respondent apparently had links to either pornographic websites, or an application for a high-interest credit card. Also, during this period, as well as at present, the website contained an e-mail link that users could click to e-mail Respondent. This e-mail link was and is likely there to collect offers for the domain name since Robert Kramer admitted to Menards’ counsel that the domain name is for sale. Plainly Respondent’s commercially driven conduct does not constitute non-commercial fair use.
Sometime after February 1, 2001, and many months after receiving notice of this dispute from Menards’ counsel, Respondent removed the link to the <Zebo.net> website and the credit card advertisement, apparently in an attempt to veil its obvious commercial exploitation of the MENARDS mark. Then, sometime after September 11, 2001, Respondent changed its website to further distance itself from its blatant commercial exploitation of the MENARDS mark by wrapping itself in the American flag and purporting to be a site affiliated with fighting terrorism. Respondent’s transparent attempts at making a putative non-commercial use of the domain name occurred well after receiving a letter from Menards’ counsel and indeed after twice speaking with Menards’ counsel on the telephone, as well as after a long period of linking to Respondent’s primary business and displaying a credit card advertisement. Respondent’s disingenuous conduct is far from a non-commercial fair use.
Thus, Respondent has no legitimate interest in the <menards.net> domain name, as legitimate interests are defined in Section 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the UDRP, and therefore the second element of Menards’ Complaint is also satisfied.
Respondent Registered And Is Using The
<menards.net> Domain Name In Bad Faith
Respondent registered the <menards.net> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name on July 14, 1998, long after Menards had adopted, used, and secured federal trademark and service mark registrations for the well-known and famous MENARDS mark. “Registering a domain name that the registrant knows belongs to someone else and that the registrant knows will confuse the users about the source or sponsorship of the domain name is bad faith.” Eastman Kodak Co. v. Dionne Lamb, FA 97644 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2001). As a resident of Iowa, where Menards operates many MENARDS retail stores, it is beyond question that Respondent was aware of Menards’ famous MENARDS name and mark when it registered the <menards.net> domain name. Indeed, there are at least six MENARDS retail stores located either within 150 miles of Respondent or 150 miles of Mr. Kramer’s other businesses. Respondent’s unquestionable actual knowledge of Menards’ rights in the MENARDS mark is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration. See The Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000)(“Registration of a well-known trademark by a party with no connection to the owner of the trademark and no authorization or legitimate purpose to utilize the mark reveals bad faith.”).
Moreover, even in the highly unlikely event that Respondent did not have actual knowledge when it registered the domain name, Respondent nonetheless was imparted with constructive knowledge of Menards’ rights in the MENARDS mark pursuant to Menards’ federal trademark and service mark registrations for the MENARDS mark. (See J. Crew Int’l, Inc. v. crew.com, D2000-0054 (WIPO April 20, 2000)(“Because of the constructive notice provisions of United States trademark law, lack of actual knowledge is not a defense and it is not necessary to find actual knowledge to conclude that the use or registration of a mark is in bad faith.”); 15 U.S.C. § 1072. At a minimum, Respondent had constructive knowledge of Respondent’s rights in the MENARDS mark. As such, Respondent knew or should have known of Menards’ trademarks rights, and such knowledge indicates bad faith. See Marriott Int’l, Inc. v. John Marriot, FA 94737 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 15, 2000)(finding bad faith because “Respondent knew or should have known that MARRIOTT was a mark of Complainant….”). Thus, Respondent registered the <menards.net> domain name in bad faith.
Respondent has also used the domain name in bad faith. Menards through its legal counsel apprised Respondent in a July 18, 2000 cease and desist letter that it was using the domain name in violation of Menards’ trademark rights. In a subsequent conversation with Menards’ counsel, Respondent replied that the only way Menards might obtain the domain name is if Menards were to “make [Respondent] an offer for it.” A domain name owner’s offer to sell a domain name to the rightful owner, after being warned that this registration and use of the domain name is wrongful, is evidence of bad faith. See America Online, Inc. v. Avraysa Yayincilik Danismanlik Ltd., FA 93679 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 16, 2000).
Worse yet, knowing of Menards’ legitimate objection to Respondent’s unlawful registration and use of the <menards.net> domain name, Respondent proceeded to renew the domain name registration in June of 2001. In August 2001, after learning of Respondent’s bad faith renewal and continued bad faith use of the domain name, Menards renewed its objection. After receiving Menards’ letter of August 3, 2001, Robert Kramer, in a telephone conversation with Menards’ counsel, again volunteered that the domain name was for sale, this time attaching a $100,000 price tag to it. Respondent’s renewed offer to sell the domain name to Menards plainly demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the domain name. See Caterpillar Inc. v. J. Shera, FA 97081 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2001)(“Respondent’s unsolicited offer to sell [the domain name] for a price that far exceeds Respondent’s out of pocket costs constitutes additional evidence of his bad faith registration and use of the domain name.”).
In addition, Respondent has engaged in similarly egregious conduct with respect to the registration of domain names containing trademarks owned by others. Upon information and belief, Respondent is also the owner of domain names held by the companies CIS Internet Services and CIS Telecommunications, Inc. The domain records for these companies as well as for ZeBo Limited list Robert W. Kramer of Iowa as the administrative contact and list a common fax number. Under the CIS Telecommunications, Inc. name, Robert Kramer registered, among others, the <iowatelco.com>, <iowatelco.net>, and <iowatelco.org> domain names, which correspond to the IOWA TELECOM service mark owned by Iowa Telecommunications Services, Inc. Under the CIS Internet Services name, Robert Kramer registered and previously owned the <fruitloops.net> domain name, which corresponds to Kellogg Company’s FROOT LOOPS mark. Such activity constitutes evidence of registration and use of the domain name at issue in bad faith, as defined in Section 4(b)(ii) of the UDRP, in that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct intended to prevent the owners of trademarks, including Menards, from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names.
Moreover, Respondent’s longtime use of the domain name has been in bad faith, as Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet traffic to the <Menards.net> website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Menards’ famous MENARDS mark for the purpose of redirecting such traffic to Respondent’s <Zebo.net> website in hopes that Internet users would purchase Respondent’s computer software products. “Intentionally trying to divert Internet users to alternative sites is evidence of bad faith.” See American Airlines, Inc. v. Data Art Corp., FA 94908 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 11, 2000). Likewise, at various times from June 19, 2000 to February 1, 2001, the <Menards.net> website apparently contained a link to a pornographic website. Such a link also likely commercially benefited Respondent, as Robert Kramer’s CIS Internet Services company is the registrant of the <global-sex.com> domain name, the website for which previously contained pornographic content. Further, by using the MENARDS mark in the <menards.net> domain name, Respondent has capitalized on the confusion Respondent created to increase the number of impressions the <Menards.net> site received in order to increase the amount it charges to display advertisements on the site. Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site [and] other on-line location[s], by creating a likelihood of confusion with [Menards’] mark….” UDRP Section 4(b)(iv). Indeed, Respondent acknowledged that confusion was caused by its use of the <menards.net> domain when it admitted it is “tired of” getting e-mails from people with “Menards complaints.” In using the <menards.net> domain name under these circumstances, both before and after Menards’ counsel informed Respondent of Menards’ rights, Respondent has done nothing but capitalized on this confusion for its commercial gain. Plainly, Respondent has acted in bad faith. See UDRP Section 4(b)(iv).
Evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <menards.net> domain name is plentiful. As such, the third and final element of Menards’ complaint under Section 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP is satisfied.
In response, Respondent makes the following points:
Menards has just recently discovered (on January 9, 2002) additional records relating to Respondent’s use of the <menards.net> domain name that Menards’ current counsel, both current in-house counsel and outside trademark counsel, did not know about prior to January 9, 2002. These additional records, which will be discussed below, paint an even more compelling picture that Respondent registered and used the <menards.net> domain name in bad faith with no legitimate right to do so. They also reveal that Respondent has misled this Panel. Menards respectfully submits that had its current counsel known of this evidence prior to filing its Complaint, counsel would have most certainly included this evidence. This evidence is additional conclusive proof that Respondent is liable under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”).
The elements of proof required of a complainant to prevail in a dispute under the UDRP could not be clearer. A complainant must establish (1) the respondent has registered a domain name that 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 respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. UDRP § 4(a)(i)-(iii). Although Respondent has attempted to complicate this proceeding by injecting a host of misleading factual information into the record, a plain application of the relevant facts to the required elements of proof clearly establishes that Menards has met its burden of proof, and that Menards is entitled to an order directing the transfer of the <menards.net> domain name to Complainant.
Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the <menards.net> Domain Name
Section 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP requires Menards to prove that Respondent has “no legitimate interest in respect of the domain name” at issue. Under Section 4(c) of the UDRP, a respondent can prove a legitimate interest in the domain name by showing that before notice of the dispute the Respondent was using or making a demonstrable preparation to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. UDRP § 4(c)(i). A respondent may also show legitimacy if the respondent is commonly known by the domain name or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name that does not intentionally divert consumers, for commercial gain, or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. UDRP § 4(c)(ii), (iii). Here, Respondent has not offered any evidence establishing that it has rights to or a legitimate interest in the <menards.net> domain name.
Specifically, Respondent now claims that the domain name was registered “with the intent of developing a web site for Menards county of which I had a friend, no longer living.” Respondent’s claim that the domain name relates to a county named “Menards” is pure fiction. See Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Market, Inc., [2000] USCA2 33; 202 F.3d. 489, 499 (2nd Cir. 2000) (“[T]he explanation given for Sporty's Farm's desire to use the [sportys.com] domain name, based on the existence of the dog Spotty, is more amusing than credible.”).
An Internet listing based on information from the Bureau of Census, United States Department of Commerce, shows there is not a single county in the United States named “Menards.” While there are two counties named “Menard” (no “s”), one is in Illinois and one is in Texas, none are named “Menards,” the term contained in the domain name at issue. Respondent did not register <menard.net>, he registered <menards.net>. In addition, Respondent gives no detail relating to any preparation to develop a website for this purpose and provides no evidence – and indeed cannot provide any evidence – that the website was in fact used for this purpose. Further, in the 18 months that Menards has been pursuing this dispute, this is the first time Respondent offered this explanation for registering the <menards.net> domain name. “An unsupported assertion claming existence of a business plan does not establish legitimate rights or interests in the domain name.” Minnesota State Lottery v. Bryan Mendes, FA 96701 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 2, 2001). See also Guerlin S.A. v. HI Investments, D2000-0494 (WIPO July 25, 2000) (“Respondent who [submitted a response and] had ample time to respond has not brought the slightest evidence to support his allegations.”). Respondent’s fictitious and questionable eleventh-hour assertion cannot now bestow Respondent with a legitimate interest in the domain name.
Moreover, Respondent did not use the domain name for this purported purpose. Rather, Respondent used the domain name to redirect Internet traffic to Respondent’s <Zebo.net> commercial website (where Respondent Zebo Limited sold computer software) and to post an advertisement for a high interest credit card. Respondent does not deny nor could he deny this already established fact. Commercially exploiting the <menards.net> domain name by linking to Respondent’s commercial website and displaying advertisements for credit card companies is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Shield v. Zuccarini, 89 F. Supp.2d 634, 635-40 (E.D. Pa. 2000).
Respondent does not claim to be commonly known by the terms Menards or <Menards.net>. Similarly, Respondent is not now making, and has never made, a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name in a manner that does not misleadingly divert consumers or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Respondent has draped the <Menards.net> website with the American flag in an attempt to present the website as being devoted to the noble cause of fighting terrorism. If Respondent truly wants to assist in this noble cause, Respondent does not need the <menards.net> domain name, a domain name solely comprised of the famous MENARDS mark, to do so. There are plainly more suitable domain names that Respondent could use to assist in the fight against terrorism if Respondent is truly concerned with this issue. See Estee Lauder Inc. v. Estelauder.com, et al., D2000-0869 (WIPO Sept. 25, 2000) (“A distinction must be drawn between the domain name itself and the contents of the site….Respondent could well have chosen to use a domain name that was not confusingly similar to Complainant’s [mark]…it intentionally chose not to do so.”).
Respondent’s only claim to having a legitimate interest in the domain name is that Respondent claims to have intended to develop a website for “Menards county of which I had a friend, no longer living.” Respondent’s contention, however, is not supported by any factual evidence, is inconsistent with Respondent’s actions, and does not change the fact that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet traffic to the <Menards.net> website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Menards’ famous MENARDS mark for the purpose of redirecting Internet traffic to Respondent’s commercial website and displaying credit card advertisements. These facts plainly demonstrate that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the <menards.net> domain name.
Respondent Registered and
Used the <menards.net> Domain Name in
Bad Faith
Respondent Registered the Domain Name Knowing of Menards’ Rights in the MENARDS Mark
Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith. It is well established that registering a domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of a complainant’s rights indicates bad faith registration and use. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Dionne Lamb, FA 97644 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2001) (“Registering a domain name that the registrant knows belongs to someone else and that the registrant knows will confuse the users about the source or sponsorship of the domain name is bad faith.” The Caravan Club v. Mrgsale, FA 95314 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 30, 2000)(“Registration of a well-known trademark by a party with no connection to the owner of the trademark and no authorization or legitimate purpose to utilize the mark reveals bad faith.”); Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (“Respondent’s certain constructive and actual knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights prior to registering the disputed domain name [is] strong evidence of registration and use of the domain in bad faith.”); Playboy Enter. Int’l, Inc. v. Federico Concas, D2001-0745 (WIPO Aug. 5, 2001) (“A finding of bad faith may be made where the Respondent ‘knew or should have known’ of the registration and use of the trademark prior to registering the domain name.”).
Respondent claims that “<Menards.net> was never obtained knowing of any trademark infringement and at the time of first registration I do not believe it had been trademarked at this time.” Respondent, however, was plainly aware of Menards when he registered the domain name. First, as will be discussed in more detail in Section C below, Menards has proof of transactions Respondent Robert Kramer conducted at a MENARDS store located in West Burlington, Iowa, immediately prior to registering the domain name. Respondent also admitted to Menards’ in-house counsel that he frequently shops at MENARDS stores. There is no doubt that Respondent knew of Menards and its rights in the famous MENARDS mark when it registered the <menards.net> domain name.
Further, as Respondent surely knew, Menards did have well settled rights in the MENARDS mark when Respondent registered the domain name on July 14, 1998. Menards has been using its MENARDS mark for at least two decades. The MENARDS word mark was first federally registered July 15, 1997. The filing date and priority date of Reg. No. 2,078,549 is November 17, 1995. Menards’ first use of its MENARDS mark, the federal registration date, and the application priority date all precede the date Respondent registered the domain name. Respondent’s admitted actual knowledge and imputed constructive knowledge of Menards’ rights reveal Respondent’s bad faith registration and use.
Finally, Respondent has changed positions with respect to admitting to knowledge of Menards and its counsel so many times that this too evidences bad faith registration and use. See J. Crew Int’l v. crew.com, D2000-0054 (WIPO Apr. 20, 2000)(“Shifting justifications for the selection of a domain name has been deemed to support a finding of bad faith.”). On December 19, 2001, an individual who identified himself as Bob Kramer told Menards’ in-house counsel that he had “no idea” what Menards was and that he had never had any communications with anyone from Fish & Richardson, Menards’ intellectual property counsel. Both Robert Kramer Jr. and Robert Kramer III were on the telephone during this call. Then, on January 3, 2002, Robert Kramer Jr. admitted that he is a frequent shopper at MENARDS and characterized Menards’ attorney Stephen R. Baird as “nasty.” The evidence plainly shows that Respondent was aware of Menards and did communicate with Menards’ counsel, although there are prior claims to the contrary. Respondent’s varying positions indicates bad faith registration and use.
Respondent Attempted to
Attract, For Commercial Gain, Internet Users to Respondent’s Website by
Creating a Likelihood of Confusion
Respondent’s use of the domain name is a classic example of bad faith registration and use as outlined in Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. As the Complaint and supporting Exhibits have irrefutably established, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site [and] other on-line location[s], by creating a likelihood of confusion with [Menards’] mark….” UDRP Section 4(b)(iv). Respondent does not deny the fact – and indeed cannot deny the fact – that it was using a domain name solely comprised of the famous MENARDS mark to attract Internet users to the <Menards.net> website in order to redirect Internet traffic to Respondent’s commercial website (located at www.zebo.net admittedly owned by Respondent, and to profit in the form of advertising revenue, which is based on the number of “hits” the website receives. This alone is strong evidence of Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <menards.net> domain name.
Respondent Has Engaged
in a Pattern of Registering Domain Names Comprised of Marks Owned by Businesses
Unrelated to Respondent
With regard to Respondent’s pattern of similar egregious conduct, Respondent contends that it is not affiliated with CIS Internet Services and that conduct attributed to CIS Internet Services does not evidence Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name. Respondent repeatedly states that “Respondent has no interest or ownership in CIS or any of the site’s referred to in [Complainant’s Exhibits].” Respondent, however, fails to inform the Panel of the fact that the domain names registered in the name of CIS Internet Services and CIS Telecommunications, Inc. (collectively “CIS”) were registered by Robert Kramer Jr.’s son, Robert Kramer III. Respondent is now attempting to draw a clean and divisive line between the actions of Robert Kramer Jr. and Robert Kramer III. It is clear, however, that these parties are in privity and the line between the parties is quite porous, not divisive.
Although not obvious, it is now apparent that Robert Kramer III simply used his father’s address and telephone number when he registered the <menards.net> domain name in the name of Zebo Limited. Evidence indicating that Robert Kramer III is behind the domain names registered in the name of ZeBo Limited and CIS includes:
· The whois records for domain names registered in the names of all claimed entities list the same facsimile number;
· Robert Kramer III is involved in Internet-oriented businesses;
· Robert Kramer Jr. informed Menards’ in-house counsel that his son was very successful in the Internet business;
· Robert Kramer Jr. referred to himself as a 60-year-old disabled contractor who refurbishes old homes. When explaining his occupation to Menards’ in-house counsel, Robert Kramer Jr. did not mention that he was the owner of a computer software company, in particular Zebo Limited;
· Robert Kramer III admittedly owns domain name registrations used in connection with pornographic websites, and the <Menards.net> website at one point in time contained a link to a pornographic website; and
· Robert Kramer III telephoned Menards’ in-house counsel after Menards filed its Complaint to discuss the dispute. Robert Kramer Jr. was also on the speaker telephone during this telephone conversation. During the telephone conversation, Robert Kramer III was acting on behalf of his father in trying to intimidate Menards’ in-house counsel in hopes that Menards would withdraw its Complaint and in trying to broker the sale of the domain name from Respondent to Menards.
The foregoing circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that Robert Kramer III simply used his father’s address and telephone number when he registered the <menards.net> domain name in the name of Zebo Limited. Complainant, therefore, maintains its position that the registrant of the <menards.net> domain name is the same individual behind the domain names registered in the name of CIS. As such, the domain name registrations in the name of CIS do serve as persuasive evidence that Respondent has engaged in similar egregious conduct and registered and used the <menards.net> domain name in bad faith. See UDRP § 4(b)(ii). If the Panel is not persuaded by this evidence and concludes that the actions taken by Robert Kramer III in the name of CIS are unrelated to Respondent Zebo Limited/Robert Kramer Jr., the Panel need only look to the undeniable facts that Respondent registered the <menards.net> domain name with actual knowledge of Menards’ rights and used the domain name to divert Internet users to its software company’s website ( the <menards.net> domain name was used to direct Internet traffic to <zebo.net>, both domains owned by Respondent ZeBo Limited, and to display credit card advertisements to conclude that Respondent registered and used the <menards.net> domain name in bad faith.
Respondent Offered to Sell
the Domain Name for a Price in Excess of its Out-of-Pocket Domain Name
Registration Expenses
Respondent Robert Kramer Jr. tries to paint himself as the victim of the claimed aggressive tactics of Menards and as an innocent individual who simply wants to be reimbursed for his expenses before transferring the domain name to Menards. Respondent deceptively asserts, “The only thing I asked of SB [referring to Menards’ trademark counsel Stephen Baird] after realizing my chances no longer exist to develop the site as first desired was to reimburse my investment.” It is true that Respondent did seek to be compensated for the domain name. The amount of compensation, however, far exceeded Respondent’s investment in the registration of the domain name. On July 24, 2000, an individual who identified himself as Mr. Kramer informed Menards’ trademark counsel that the only way Menards would get the domain name was if Menards was to “make [Respondent] an offer for it.” This language certainly suggests that Respondent was seeking more than the amount he invested in the registration of the domain name. Then, in a subsequent telephone conversation on August 7, 2001, an individual who identified himself as Mr. Kramer volunteered that the domain name was for sale – for $100,000. At no time prior to Respondent filing its Complaint did Respondent indicate to Menards that it was willing to transfer the domain name for anything less than an extortionate sum far in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket registration expenses. Moreover, Respondent does not deny that he attached a $100,000 price tag to the offer to sell Complainant the offending domain name.
Respondent’s claim that it only wanted to be reimbursed for its investment is an ex post facto attempt to try to represent himself as a victim who acted in good faith. The facts plainly indicate otherwise. However, if the Panel attaches any amount of credibility to Respondent’s claim that it only sought to be reimbursed for its “investment,” the Panel again need only look to the undisputed and indisputable facts that Respondent registered the <menards.net> domain name with actual knowledge of Menards’ rights and used the domain name to divert Internet users to its <Zebo.net> commercial website (reselling software) and to display credit card advertisements to conclude that Respondent registered and used the <menards.net> domain name in bad faith.
The Newly Discovered
Evidence
Unbeknownst to Menards’ current in-house and outside counsel, Menards began investigating Respondent’s unauthorized registration of the <menards.net> domain name shortly after Respondent registered the domain name on July 14, 1998. On July 5, 1998, Respondent Robert Kramer purchased $132.98 worth of lumber and related material from Menards. Apparently dissatisfied with some of the merchandise, Mr. Kramer returned $119.71 worth of lumber to MENARDS store number 3066 in West Burlington, Iowa on July 13, 1998 – the day before the <menards.net> domain name was registered. On August 3, 1998, Menards discovered that Mr. Kramer (likely with the help of his son) had put up a website at the www.menards.net Internet address. As is plain from a cursory review of the material displayed on the site, this website created a likelihood of confusion, as it displayed Menards’ well-known and famous federally registered marks in their entireties. Moreover, the content of the site went out of its way to tarnish Menards’ service marks and the company’s well-earned reputation for quality and service.
On August 6, 1998, Menards then in-house counsel sent Respondent a letter objecting to Respondent’s registration and use of the <menards.net> domain name. A few days later, Respondent changed the <Menards.net> website to further tarnish Menards’ marks. As the printout of the <Menards.net> website from August 11, 1998 shows, the website included the language “Me N A Real Dumb Site” atop the website and featured the famous “Menards Guy,” Ray Szmanda, with a pig’s head. A few days later, the website included the mark MENARDS emblazoned across the screen with the words “Coming Soon” and “This Site is For Sale” under the MENARDS mark. During this period of time the <Menards.net> website always included an email link to Respondent, presumably for the purpose of entertaining offers to purchase the domain name, as Respondent began explicitly trying to sell the domain name only a few weeks after registration.
This newly discovered evidence further indicates that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith with no legitimate right or interest in the domain name. With regard to legitimacy, Respondent never claimed to be making a fair use of the domain name. And, as the facts show, Respondent simply could not have claimed to be making a fair use of the domain name. First, Section 4(c)(iii) of the UDRP requires that any fair use of a domain name not “tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” Respondent’s use certainly tarnishes Menards’ marks including the famous MENARDS mark as well as the highly recognizable “Menards Guy.” For example, on August 3, 1998, the website showed the “Menards Guy” saying “Yes Bob, I see the crack, so all wood cracks, cups and warps. Whats the big deal Bob? So what if it puts your job behind. You’ll live thru it, and ‘Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.’” This plainly tarnishes Menards’ marks as it suggests the “Menards Guy” is arrogant, sarcastic, and unconcerned with quality and customer service. Then, a few days later, Respondent puts a pig’s head on the “Menards Guy” and modifies the text on the site to further tarnish Menards’ marks and reputation. This plainly constitutes tarnishment of Menards’ marks.
In addition to intending to tarnish Menards’ marks, which immediately eliminates any possibility that Respondent was making a fair use of the domain name, additional factors demonstrate the Respondent never made a fair use of the domain name. First, “[t]he site was not a forum for the free exchange of ideas since Respondent control[ed] the content of the site.” Manitoba Metis Federation, Inc. v. Belhumeur, AF-0829 (eResolution June 5, 2001). This negates the possibility of a fair use. Second, UDRP panels have recognized a distinction between fair use of the domain name and fair use of the content on the website. See Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Jorgenson, 96586 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 28, 2001) (“A distinction must be drawn between the domain name itself and the contents of the site….). Although the content of a site can, under circumstances not present here, be protected under an application of the fair use doctrine under trademark law, “the domain name in question itself [must] signif[y] [a] critical purpose, as opposed to imitation of the service mark.” Robo Enter., Inc. v. Tobiason, 95857 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 24, 2000). See also Winchester Props., LLC v. Defaultdata.com, 97114 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 22, 2001) (“A critical issue…is whether the domain name in question itself signifies critical purpose, or parody, as opposed to imitation of the trademark at issue.”); New York Times CO. v. New York Internet Servs., D2000-1072 (WIPO Dec. 5, 2000) (“[E]ven though [respondent] may have the right to (1) establish commentary…and (2) to mention [complainant]…[respondent] is not necessarily entitled to use [complainant’s] name or mark as part of [respondent’s] address….”).
Here, the <menards.net> domain name does not in any way signify a critical purpose or parody. Rather, the domain name is solely comprised of the famous MENARDS mark. As such, Respondent has never made a fair use of the domain name.
As for bad faith, this newly discovered evidence also confirms that Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. First, Respondent Robert Kramer Jr. obviously knew of Menards’ rights when he registered the domain name, which indicates bad faith registration and use. Second, Respondent has clearly tried to profit from its registration of the domain name as he has unsuccessfully been trying to sell the domain name for more than three years. Third, this newly discovered evidence conclusively reveals that Respondent has offered a parade of false and misleading statements in his Response. Respondent did not register the domain name because he had friend living in a county named Menards. Respondent registered the domain name to tarnish the marks and reputation of Menards and then extort an inflated price for the domain name. Respondent did not simply want to recover his documented out-of-pocket registration expenses. Rather, he was out to profit from his registration of the domain name. When that did not work, he used the domain name to divert Internet traffic to a separate commercial website <Zebo.net>, also owned by Respondent, to promote the sale of software. Respondent’s pattern of lying and lack of candor before this Panel should alone establish illegitimacy and registration and use in bad faith.
Respondent has submitted confusing, incomprehensible, false, and misleading statements that discredit Respondent’s submission in its entirety. Instead of putting forth any evidence of a legitimate interest in the domain name or any believable evidence to mitigate Respondent’s bad faith registration and use, Respondent is simply attempting to muddy the factual record with its fiction.
Menards, on the other hand, has established the following: (1) Respondent registered the <menards.net> domain, which is identical and/or confusingly similar to Menards’ famous and well-known MENARDS mark; (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <menards.net> domain name, as Respondent has not put forth any evidence that it was using or making a demonstrable preparation to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or otherwise making a legitimate use of the domain name; and (3) Respondent registered and is using the <menards.net> domain names in bad faith, as Respondent, among other things, (i) registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Menards’ rights and now misleadingly suggests that he was unaware of Menards and denies any knowledge of infringement, (ii) used the domain name for Respondent’s commercial benefit, (iii) offered to sell the domain name for a sum far in excess of the registration expenses, (iv) linked the domain name to a pornographic website, and (v) submitted a Response containing blatant lies.
Respondent says Complainant’s submission is malicious, slanderous and harassing. This site was offered to Menards through their attorney, Stephen Baird, for out of pocket expenses, registration fees only during a telephone conversation of August 6, 2001 after Respondent realized the opportunity to create a site for Menards county no longer existed. Baird has insisted that the site belongs to Menards Inc. and that Respondent should immediately transfer it to them.
Respondent further states that this same offer was made to Dawn Sands of Menards on January 3, 2002. Respondent told Ms. Sands the cost would be $35 x 3. Respondent called Menards Inc. President’s office on January 16, 2002, and spoke with a woman named Brenda, “telling her who Respondent was and explaining that Respondent do not understant [sic] the aggressive attitude of there [sic] attorneys. Respondent also explained that there has been this standing offer since Aug 6, 2001.” Respondent says Complainant has ignored this offer “time after time”.
Respondent takes issue with any attempt by Complainant’s attorneys to demonstrate that Respondent and his son are in some way involved in business and responsible for each other’s actions. Respondent says, “We both have very strong and different personalities.” Respondent says he and his son are in no way involved with each other in the sites mentioned and suggests that any mention of Robert W. Kramer III should be removed from this proceeding.
Respondent says the facts are as follows:
§ Respondent is the registrant of <menards.net>.
§ Robert W. Kramer III is the son of Respondent.
§ Each of these Robert Kramers does business without the other and in no way share ownership or have financial gain from any business or domain name together.
§ Respondent did register <menards.net> as the result of a conversation with a friend involved with them and with the intentions of providing and building a web site for Menard County.
§ Respondent has offered to give this Internet site, <menards.net> to Complainant on more than one occasion for his out of pocket expenses of $105.00.
§ “Complainant says he deals with the facts but he has not.”
§ “Complainant has done everything he can to cloud the issue.”
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that:
1. The domain name <menards.net> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complaint’s registered MENARDS trademarks and service marks.
2. The Respondent has not established any right or legitimate interest in the domain name; and
3. The Respondent acquired and has used the domain name in bad faith.
DISCUSSION
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.
Respondent does not dispute that <menards.net> is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. Respondent asserts that he added the words, “Not the lumber yard,” to the web site to ensure there would be no confusion. This element, however, is not concerned with whether the web site attempts to deal with confusion due to confusing similarity. In addressing this element the Panel must examine the domain name itself for similarity to the Complainant’s marks.
In this case, as is often the case, the only difference between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name is the addition of the suffix “.net” after the word “menards”. Otherwise, the domain name is identical. The first element, therefore, is established.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(c) if the Policy”
“…Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(1)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
Respondent assets that he had no idea about Complainant’s trademark rights. The uncontroverted evidence establishes, however, that Respondent purchased merchandise at a Menards store on July 5, 1998, and that he returned some of that merchandise on July 13, 1998. This clearly establishes that Respondent was well aware of the existence of Menards retail establishments and hence Menards’ trademark when he registered the domain name on July 14, 1998. While Respondent asserts that he registered the disputed domain name in order to develop a website about a county Menards in which a now deceased friend of his lived, no tangible evidence was presented to establish the existence of the friend or the county. Furthermore, documentary evidence from shortly after Respondent registered the domain name leads to the inference that Respondent registered the domain name because he was angry with Menards because of a dispute over product quality. This evidence all leads to the conclusion that Respondent was well aware of existence of Complaint’s trademark before registration of the domain name and that before registration of the domain name no demonstrable preparations had been made to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services as is outlined in the Policy.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Respondent was ever commonly known by the domain name.
Neither is there any evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Respondent’s use of the domain name has changed over time. Initially, Respondent used the domain name to criticize Complainant’s business. This use does not meet the test for legitimate noncommercial or fair use because in this case the domain name itself does not signify a critical purpose or parody. Furthermore, the initial use of the name makes it clear that Respondent did intend to tarnish the Menards trademark.
Respondent’s later uses, including advertising credit cards on the site and offering links to Respondent’s <zebo.com> site where Respondent sold computer software and/or to pornographic sites, were uses intended for commercial gain. In all the circumstances, the Panel finds, as well, that the most recent use of the site, displaying the American flag and the words, “Help America fight terrorism,” comes too late to permit Respondent to use that evidence to establish a legitimate interest in the domain name, especially when there is no demonstrated connection between “Menards” and the current message.
Respondent, therefore, has not established any right or legitimate interest in the domain name <menards.net>.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
With respect to this element, the paragraph 4(b) of the Policy reads:
“For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location
With respect to the four enumerated criteria, the Panel finds as follows:
1. While Respondent did later, on at least two occasions, offer the domain name for sale to Complainant, the name was not acquired, at least initially, primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket expenses.
2. There is no evidence that the domain name was registered to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. In light of my further finding below, I do not find it necessary to make a finding on whether or not Respondent and his son and their businesses are sufficiently connected to each other that the son’s pattern of registration of what appear to be the marks of others would be sufficient to meet this criterion.
3. Respondent is not a competitor of Complainant.
4. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that for much of the time during which Respondent has been using the domain name, Respondent has been attempting to attract Internet users to the site for commercial gain. Someone looking for Complainant’s business could easily find themselves at Respondent’s web site where credit cards and links to other commercial sites have been offered. This, in my view amounts to bad faith.
On our reading of the Policy, as well, each panel is responsible to determine whether there has been bad faith. The four cited examples are situation where, if the evidence exists, the Panel must find bad faith. This does not, however, preclude the Panel finding that other circumstances amount to bad faith in a particular case. The paragraph says, "in particular but without limitation". In reviewing all the evidence in this case, the Panel finds that there has been a pattern of bad faith.
Given the uncontroverted evidence in Complainant’s additional submissions, there is no question that Respondent knew about Complainant’s marks when he registered the domain name in July 1998. Indeed, as I have already stated, the inference to be drawn from all the evidence is that Respondent registered the domain name and put up the web site at the time for the specific purpose of attacking Complainant’s business. This alone, in our view, amounts to bad faith. Respondent, however, went on to use the web site for commercial purposes in no way whatsoever connected to the name Menards, including offering credit card applications and offering links to Respondents <zebo.com> web site and links to pornographic web sites. This is continuing evidence of bad faith. Lastly, I simply do not accept Respondent’s assertion that Complainant did not take him up on his alleged offers to transfer the domain name in exchange for his out-of-pocket expenses. I accept the declarations of Complainant’s witnesses that Respondent attempted to sell the domain name to Complainant for more than out-of-pocket expenses, and that on at least one occasion Respondent offered to sell the domain name for $100,000.
All this evidence taken together, demonstrates a pattern of bad faith sufficient to meet the third element.
For the reasons set out above, I find for the Complainant, and I order that the disputed domain name <menards.net> be transferred to the Complainant, Menards, Inc..
Anne M. Wallace, Q.C., Panelist
Dated: February 5, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/167.html