From www.domainnamewire.com- Fragrance and fashion company Christian Dior has lost a challenge for the domain name KiannaDior.com to an adult actress. The company challenged Victoria Woo, who goes by the stage name Kianna Dior, to get rights to the domain name.

That the domain name KiannaDior.com could be found confusingly similar to ChristianDior.com is somewhat surprising. In fact, it seemed that the arbitrator was going to rule that it wasn’t confusingly similar. Here’s how the arbitrator summarized Christian Dior’s argument:

The Complainant submits that “the domain name kiannadior.com is high similar (sic) to the trademark DIOR, since the trademark is completely included in the domain name”.

The Complainant goes on to argue that:

“the dominant part of the domain name KIANNADIOR.COM is DIOR which evokes the Complainant’s trademarks. The adjunction of KIANNA at the beginning of the domain name refers to a first name, like when the Complainant uses the first name and the family name CHRISTIAN DIOR, which creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant trademarks. Furthermore, KIANNA seems to be a female first name which refers to MISS DIOR used by the Complainant. The consumers will believe that KIANNA DIOR is a new sign of the Complainant. The letters IAN (of KIANNA) are included in the trademark CHRISTIAN DIOR”.

That’s quite a stretch. The arbitrator then explains why this claim isn’t necessarily the fair:

This Panel is of the opinion that the unqualified statement that confusing similarity exists if a disputed domain name completely incorporates the relevant trademark does not, without more, prove dispositive in the present case. For example, the Complainant’s trademark DIOR could be wholly incorporated in the hypothetical domain name diorama.com, however the word “diorama” has, in English at least, an independent dictionary meaning which dispels any confusion with DIOR. The trademark NIKE is incorporated within, for example, the domain name nikethamide.com, a drug used as a respiratory stimulant. In such cases, there may very well be no confusing similarity.

These are excellent points. I was surprised when the panelist went ahead and decided it was confusingly similar, but the arbitrator made the caveat that the case could be decided on other grounds. Namely, the panelist said the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, which is a no-brainer given its continuous use for many years.