Thread: Domain Dispute Decision: RachelRay.in

A recent .IN domain dispute involved the domain name RachelRay.in. You can view the decision here.

Complainant is Ray Marks Co. LLC - a company formed by Rachael Ray, an American tv host/chef/author.

Respondent is Rachel Ray Techniques Private Limited, a company incorporated in India.

Respondent stated it offered gifts and other products made using laser ray technology (different channel of trade than complainant). The respondent stated that the reason for adopting the name "Rachel Ray" was as follows:

"...the name was initially chosen by one of the previous partners. The respondent believed that the name was derived from the name of some family member of the said previous partner. But it was brought to the notice of the respondent by the previous partner that the firm's name was derived from the business he planned to do at that stage. 'R 'from Random, 'A 'from Art, 'C from Craft, 'H' from Hologram, E' from Etching & 'L' from Laser Cutting. As the technology was used Laser Rays, hence the name was derived to "Rachel Ray ".

The arbitrator concluded that the respondent had provided contradictory versions (in present and past proceedings) as to the reason for selecting of the name "Rachel Ray."

As the complainant succeeded in making a prima facie case against the respondent, the burden of proof shifted to the respondent to provide evidence establishing its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. However, the evidence produced by the respondent was insufficient to establish such rights/legitimate interest:

The Respondent has shown no solid, direct and hard evidence like copy of balance sheet of the company, sales volume, bills, vouchers etc and revenue in connection with its products for showing his continuous running business. On directions of the Tribunal dated 28th June, 2011, to produce such evidence, the Respondent sent only two certificates from its Chartered Accountant which does not show that the Respondent is continuously doing effective business. More so when he knew that his alleged use or preparations to use domain name is challenged by the Complainant.

Complainant was awarded the domain. Last year, the respondent also lost the domain RachelRay.com to the complainant (see decision here).

Do you think the respondent's explanation as to how it came to choose the name "Rachel Ray" is plausible or not?

I think so , it is looking a like a story which the respondent has presented to select the name when I read the details.

If the respondent has a relative/friend named Rachel Ray perhaps respondent could have won this case

Cheers

I don't know too much about laser ray technology, but the respondent's reason for choosing the name seems a bit far-fetched to me.