WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0996 for zaatarwzeit.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Knead Holding S.A.L. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Jamil Fares Case No. D2019-0996 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Knead Holding S.A.L., Lebanon, represented by Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLC, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States / Jamil Fares, United States, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 1, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name May 1, 2019. On May 1, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 6, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 7, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 9, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 29, 2019. Two informal email communications from the Respondent were received by the Center on May 6, 2019. The formal Response was filed with the Center on May 29, 2019.
The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on June 12, 2019. 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 and its predecessors operate a chain of restaurants in Lebanon and a number of other countries. The business has traded under the name “Zaatar W Zeit” since 1999.
The Complainant has invoked four Lebanese and Moroccan registered trade marks consisting of a device plus the words “Zaatar W Zeit” in both Arabic and English, including Lebanese trade mark no. 85281 filed on October 30, 2000, in class 42. All four registered trade marks appear to be registered in the name of “Breakfast & Co. SARL”, with an address in Lebanon.
Since 2004, the Complainant has operated a website at “”.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 22, 2006.
The Panel has not been provided with any evidence indicating that the Respondent has ever used the disputed domain name for an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions.
The disputed domain name is phonetically and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark and domain name.
Common misspellings or slight variations cannot defeat claims of confusing similarity.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is unaware of any evidence establishing that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the Respondent is attempting to misappropriate the Complainant’s corporate identity or capitalise on the goodwill in the Complainant’s marks.
The disputed domain name has not been used substantively for over a decade.
The Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name at least seven years after the Complainant first used its mark.
It appears that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to reflect the Complainant’s trade mark with a view to selling it to the Complainant or the Complainant’s competitors.
The Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name to give the false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent is thereby disrupting the Complainant’s business by causing confusion and loss of business to the Complainant. The disputed domain name is having a negative impact on the Complainant’s business as it continues to expand globally. B. Respondent
The following is a summary of the Respondent’s contentions.
The Respondent is “an ordinary citizen” who has registered “a few domains” over the last two decades in his role as a software developer. He uses these domain names for his clients or for his own projects. He is not a dealer in domain names.
The term “zaatar w zeit” is the name of a common Lebanese food. “Zaatar” refers to a mix of herbs, mainly thyme; “w” means “and”; and “Zeit” means oil. As this is a famous staple food in Lebanon and the Respondent is of Lebanese heritage, he bought the disputed domain name for potential olive oil and fine herbs import business. The domain name , which is “a slight variation of mine”, “is also currently privately registered”.
There is even a bakery in Michigan, United States called “Zaatar W Zeit”. This is just one example which illustrates that the Complainant has chosen for its brand name a very common term in the Lebanese language.
The Complainant’s allegations are far-fetched. Name collisions such as this are bound to happen.
If the Complainant had a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, then it would have registered it at the same time as registering the domain name on May 27, 2004. The Respondent only registered the disputed domain name on January 22, 2006. This shows that the Complainant had no interest in the disputed domain name when it registered the doma