Salton, Inc. v. George Foreman Foods, Inc., Case No. D2004-0777 (WIPO Dec. 3, 2004), demonstrates the difficulty of fighting contract disputes in the wrong forum.

Denying the Complainant's challenge to the registration and use of the domain name www.georgeforeman.com by the licensee of the name for food products, the Panel states:

Complainant acknowledged that Respondent had obtained a license from George Foreman granting Respondent the right to use the <georgeforeman.com> domain name. Indeed, Complainant attached a copy of that license agreement to its own Complaint. The license agreement grants to Respondent the right to use, among other things, “GeorgeForeman.com and all Internet addresses utilizing [Mr. Foreman]’s name . . . .”

Complainant’s argument hinges on its assertion that that license agreement has been terminated, an assertion supported by an allegation in a complaint recently filed by Mr. Foreman against third parties.

However, the Panel concludes that Respondent has established that its use of the name “George Foreman” was -- and continues to be -- pursuant to rights granted by Mr. Foreman. Respondent concedes that Mr. Foreman and Respondent are engaged in arbitration and that they disagree as to whether the license agreement has been terminated. However, even if the written license agreement has been terminated, Respondent has not -- as yet -- lost all rights to the disputed domain name. The correspondence from Mr. Foreman’s counsel confirms this by referring to Mr. Foreman’s intention, in the arbitration, to seek the “return” of the domain name and demanding that Respondent “protect” it in the interim. This is a recognition that Respondent continues to have some rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, albeit subject to the outcome of the arbitration.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.