Kkret.com

The timeline behind kkret.com

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. v. Global Limited Claim Number: FA2502002141624 PARTIES Complainant is Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P. ("Complainant"), represented by Bryce J. Maynard of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Global Limited ("Respondent"), New York, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <kkret.com>, 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2025. Forum received payment on February 24, 2025. On February 24, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kkret.com> 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 February 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 20, 2025 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@kkret.com. Also on February 28, 2025, 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 March 21, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. L.P., is the leading global investment firm that offers alternative asset management as well as capital markets and insurance solutions. "KKR" is an acronym formed from the names of the company's founders - Jerome Kohlberg Jr., Henry Kravis, and George R. Roberts. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used the KKR marks, as a word mark and in logo form, in connection with financial and investment services since at least as early as 1976. Complainant has common law rights in the KKR marks and has registered several KKR marks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and numerous other trademark offices around the world. Complainant also operates the "www.kkr.com" website. Respondent's <kkret.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's KKR marks. Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the <kkret.com> domain name. Respondent is not known as "KKRET" or "KKR." Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, because it is using the domain name to pass itself off falsely as Complainant. Respondent is not known by the domain name and is not using it for non-commercial or fair use purposes. Moreover, Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent in any way to use or exploit Complainant's KKR marks, nor to associate itself otherwise with Complainant. Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant and thereby both to disrupt Complainant's business and intentionally to attract consumers for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of 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 Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii)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 as 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 Complainant has shown that it has rights in the KKR Word and KKR Logo marks through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., KKR Word, Reg. No. 3,653,664, registered on July 14, 2009, and KKR Logo, Reg. No. 4,229,107, registered on October 23, 2012). It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <kkret.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's KKR Word and KKR Logo marks, only differing from the text of the marks by the addition of the letters "et" which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from either of Complainant's marks. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Respondent's <kkret.com> domain name was registered on April 3, 2023, long after the registration of Complainant's marks. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's KKR Logo mark at the top left of the screen, at the same position as the KKR Logo mark on Complainant's website. The "Organization Overview" page on Respondent's website contains the following language: "Kohlberg Kravis Roberts (commonly referred to as KKR Pro) We are a global investment firm that manages a wide range of alternative asset classes, including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit, foreign exchange, cryptocurrency short term contracts and hedge funds. Founded in 1976 by Jerome Kohlberg, Henry Kravis, and George Roberts, KKR Pro has grown into one of the largest and most influential private equity firms in the world. We pioneered the leveraged buyout (LBO) model and introduced trading in foreign exchange and crypto short-term contracts, further expanding our global reach and strengthening our position as a leader in the financial markets." Although Complainant is not commonly referred to as KKR Pro, this evidence of attempted impersonation of Complainant, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <kkret.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (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. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its KKR marks when Respondent registered the <kkret.com> domain name and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant. Further, that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kkret.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 21, 2025. 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.