Kkrvn.vip

The timeline behind kkrvn.vip

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. v. li nico Claim Number: FA2406002104109 PARTIES Complainant is Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Bassam N. Ibrahim of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is li nico ("Respondent"), West Virginia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <kkrvn.vip>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 27, 2024; Forum received payment on June 27, 2024. On June 28, 2024, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kkrvn.vip> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On July 1, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@kkrvn.vip. Also on July 1, 2024, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 23, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. is a limited partnership formed under the laws of Delaware. Complainant is in the financial and investment services field. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have been using KKR and KKR-formative marks globally since as early as 1976. Complainant is the owner of numerous U.S. trademark registrations for KKR. Complainant uses the domain name <kkr.com>. Respondent's <kkrvn.vip> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KKR trademark as it incorporates KKR in its entirety only adding the "vn" country code and the ".vip" top-level. By using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's KKR marks, Respondent is seeking to disrupt the business of Complainant, constituting bad faith. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor authorized to register the domain name or otherwise use the KKR mark. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Instead, <kkrvn.vip> is used to pass off as Complainant and addresses a website that has a copy of Complainant's genuine homepage. Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. By using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's KKR mark, Respondent is seeking to disrupt the business of Complainant, constituting bad faith. Respondent has registered and uses the Infringing domain name solely for commercial gain, constituting bad faith. Registration and use of a disputed domain name which is essentially identical to a complainant's mark and using that domain name to attempt to benefit financially is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights when it registered <kkrvn.vip>. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has trademark rights in KKR. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the KKR mark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in KKR. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website containing a copy of Complainant's genuine homepage. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 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 Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) 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. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's registration of its KKR mark with the USPTO demonstrates Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Respondent's <kkrvn.vip> domain name contains Complainant's KKR trademark followed by the geographic identifier "vn" with all followed by the ".vip" top-level. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark do nothing to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <kkrvn.vip> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KKR trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018)("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). The WHOIS information for <kkrvn.vip> identifies the domain name's registrant as "li nico" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by <kkrvn.vip>. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known as <kkrvn.vip> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) ("Here, the WHOIS information lists "er nong wu" as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).") Respondent uses its <kkrvn.vip> domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's genuine homepage. Thereby, Respondent leads internet users to falsely infer an association between the at-issue domain name, website, and Complainant. Respondent's use of <kkrvn.vip> in this manner is thus neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Given the forgoing, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <kkrvn.vip>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is sufficient evidence to allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. Respondent uses its confusingly similar <kkrvn.vip> domain name to address a website made to appear as if it might be Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's use of <kkrvn.vip> is thus disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to deceptively attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <kkrvn.vip> domain name and Complainant's KKR trademark. Respondent's use of the <kkrvn.vip> domain name and its referenced website demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Moreover, Respondent registered <kkrvn.vip> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in KKR. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that displays Complainant's genuine homepage. Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's KKR trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <kkrvn.vip> in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name"). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kkrvn.vip> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: July 24, 2024 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.