The domain name dispute follows a contractual wrangle between
Foreman, who became heavyweight champion of the world in both 1973
and, remarkably, 1994, and a food company that was keen to use
Foreman's name to market its products.
Since leaving boxing, Foreman has found wealth and renewed fame
by endorsing products – most notably the grill produced by US
marketers Salton Inc.
The former champion's marketing repertoire has now moved beyond
electrical products, and includes clothes and cleaning products.
Low-fat, grill-compatible foods were also in Foreman's sights, when
he signed an agreement with food company George Foreman Foods to
endorse some of their products.
But according to reports, the two parties fell out last year
over the types of food involved and the matter is now in the hands
of the lawyers.
In September, Salton, the company behind Foreman's most famous
endorsement, filed a complaint with the domain name dispute service
of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) over the
food company's continued use of the boxer's name in its web
address, georgeforeman.com, arguing that this breached Salton's
registered trade marks in the name.
In response, George Foreman Foods argued that Foreman had
originally registered the domain name and had granted the company a
licence to use the name in January 2003. Accordingly it had a
legitimate interest in using the domain.
It also said the use of the domain was not likely to create
confusion between Salton's products and its own, which related only
to food. Rather, said George Foreman Foods, users were more likely
to understand that Mr Foreman is associated with the web site.
Not so, said Salton, arguing that the licence had been
terminated and that, accordingly, the company's use of the domain
now created a "likelihood of confusion as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site".
The food company disputed this, pointing out that the licence
agreement with George Foreman was under arbitration and that until
the agreement was "ruled terminated" then George Foreman Foods
would continue to have rights under that agreement.
The WIPO panellist agreed, finding that while the domain was
confusingly similar to Salton's trade marks, George Foreman Foods
did still have rights in the domain name, "albeit subject to the
outcome of the arbitration."
Accordingly, the complaint was denied.
