Complainant states that “[s]ince launching the INSTANT POT branded multicooker in 2008, the brand[] has gained widespread acclaim and commercial success”; that “[o]n Amazon Prime Day 2016, the Instant Pot multicooker sold 215,000 units alone”; that Complainant has had a website using the domain name <instanthome.com> since at least May 22, 2009; and that Complainant has more than 805,000 followers on Facebook, 524,000 on Instagram, and 23,000 on Twitter (presumably referring to the service now known as X).<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on February 5, 2024, and, according to Complainant, is being used in connection with a website that “offers the Complainant’s products through Amazon affiliate links” that “allow the Respondent to earn commission when an internet user clicks on a link.” Complainant provided a printout of a page from this website.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that it has rights in the INSTANT POT Trademark “[a]s illustrated” by the schedule described above; and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the INSTANT POT Trademark because, inter alia, “[t]he Disputed Domain Name include[s] the Complainant’s INSTANT POT marks as the dominant element, along with a non-distinctive term ‘cookware’,” which “does nothing to alter the overall impression in the eyes of the average Internet user.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “[b]ased on the considerable reputation of the INSTANT POT brand, there is no credible, believable, or realistic reason for registration or use of the Disputed Domain Name other than to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights and brand reputation”; Respondent’s website using the Disputed Domain Name is operated “for commercial gain without the Complainant’s permission or consent”; “Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is merely to pass off as the Complainant in order to earn commission via affiliate links”; “Respondent has never legitimately been known by the name INSTANT POT at any point in time”; and “nothing about the Disputed Domain Name suggests that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “Respondent was unequivocally aware of the INSTANT POT brand given the Respondent’s Infringing Website makes substantial use of INSTANT POT brand assets and directs internet users to the Complainants products on Amazon via affiliate links”; “[u]sing a trade mark to divert traffic to the Respondent’s own website is consistently held by panelists to amount bad faith registration and use”; and “Respondent disrupts the Complainant’s business by diverting potential customers to the Infringing Website to earn commission via Amazon affiliate links.”<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant states that it “owns very extensive rights” in the trademark INSTANT POT (the “INSTANT POT Trademark”). In support thereof, Complainant provides a schedule of what appear to be 41 registrations or applications in 18 trademark offices for marks that consist in whole or in part of the words “INSTANT POT,” although the owner for many of the entries is identified as “Instant Brands, Inc.” or other entities, not Complainant. (Complainant does not describe how any of these entities may be related to Complainant.) Further, Complainant provides no documentation in support of the schedule, such as copies of trademark registration certificates or printouts from relevant trademark law offices. Nevertheless, exercising its power to conduct independent research under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel notes that the first registration on Complainant’s schedule is for U.S. Reg. No. 6,907,251 (registered November 22, 2022) for INSTANT POT for use in connection with, inter alia, “[e]lectric cooking ovens for household purposes.”<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "instantpotcookware.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }