The Kittinger Company Inc. v. Kittinger Collector

Kittinger Furniture Vintage Welsh Dresser Wall Unit Sideboard. View It on eBay. 50179EC KITTINGER Colonial Williamsburg CW 129 Chippendale Mahogany Sofa. View It on eBay. 31884EC KITTINGER CW 174 Colonial Williamsburg Mahogany Sofa. Kittinger Furniture Serial Numbers Ashampoo Burning Studio 2010 Serial Key Download Byomkesh Bakshi All 54 Episodes In Download Torrent Backup Exec 2014 Keygen Free Ultrasound Reporting Software Download Search by typing & pressing enter. 9/20/2019 Aria Guitar Serial Number. The furniture was exhibited, along with other reproductions at Craft House in WILLIAMSBURG®. At the Ayscough house in Colonial Williamsburg in the early years of the program, Kittinger artisans dressed in quaint eighteenth century costumes and working with tools of colonial days, exhibited their craftsmanship to visitors. Kittinger would like to congratulate you for owning a piece of America's Finest Furniture. Unfortunately we are unable to determine when exactly your individual piece of furniture was manufactured. Today we have instilled a new practice where we engrave the invoice number on the Kittinger brass plate that is attached to every piece of Kittinger. Kittinger, with their many lines of traditional furniture, became the company of choice for most of the furniture reproductions in the prominent rooms of the White House in 1968. President Nixon started commissioning Kittinger Furniture to make the majority of the fine furniture in the White House.

[Indexed as: Kittinger Company v. Kittinger Collector]
[Indexed as: kittengercollector.com et al]

e Resolution
Part of the Disputes.org/eResolution Consortium
Administrative Panel Decision

Case Number: AF-0107
Commenced: April 14, 2000
Judgment: May 8, 2000

Presiding Panelist: Merton E. Thompson

Kittinger Furniture Serial Numbers Lookup

Domain name - ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy -Submission of additional pleadings - Rebuttal - Response to rebuttal -Canadian Trademark - U.S. Trademark - Pending renewal of application - Non-use of mark - Fair use - Bona fide offering of goods - Colonial furniture- Identical - Confusingly similar - Legitimate interest - Bad faith registration- Bad faith use.

Complainant was manufacturer of furniture and owner by assignment ofCanadian Trademark for KITTINGER. In addition, Complainant was applicantfor U.S. Trademark for KITTINGER and owner of KITTINGER OLD DOMINION, forwhich the renewal application was pending due to a USPTO request for provisionof details concerning non-use of the mark.

Complainant was attempting to revive the fortunes of the Kittinger Company,which had fallen on hard times and ceased operations for a period. Respondent, proprietor of trade-marks kittingercollector.com and kittinger.com,was in the business of purchasing, restoring and re-selling furniture manufacturedby the Complainant’s predecessors. Respondent contested the abilityof Complainant to benefit from the priority of the above registrationsdue to the long history of serial assignments and period of non-use. The Parties disagreed on whom could use variations on the Kittinger nameas a domain name.

The Parties requested permission to submit additional pleadings. Panel granted the request and Complainant’s Rebuttal was filed along withRespondent’s Response to Complainant’s Rebuttal.

Held, Domain Names kittingercollector.com and kittinger.com not transferredto Complainant.

Complainant bears the burden of proving the three elements under paragraph4(a) of the UDRP.

Complainant partially met its burden with respect to the first element. Even though there appeared to be some unresolved issues concerning thenon-use of the mark, Complainant was the owner of a Canadian Registrationwhich was identical to the kittinger.com domain name at issue.
With respect to the second domain however, kittingercollector.com,Panel found that it was not identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’strademark and was unlikely to cause confusion with Complainant’s business.

Kittinger Furniture Serial Numbers Lookup

The evidence demonstrated that Respondent, commonly known by the nameKittinger Collector, used its domains in connection with a bona fideoffering of goods and services to acquire, re-condition and re-sale usedKittinger furniture. Thus, Panel found that Respondent had legitimate rightsand interest in respect of the domain names. Respondent did not acquirethe domain names for the purpose of sale and did not register the namesto prevent Complainant from reflecting its mark, nor to disrupt the businessof a competitor. Panel also found that Respondent did not intentionallyattempt to attract, for commercial gains, Internet users to its web site.Therefore, Complainant failed to establish bad faith registration and badfaith use by Respondent.

Policies referred to
ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

Panel Decision referred to
--

Thompson, Panelist: -
The Kittinger Company Inc. v. Kittinger Collector (AF00107a and b)
This is a domain name dispute under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution Policy (the 'UDRP'). The domain registrations at issue in thispanel decision are kittingercollector.com and kittinger.com, both registeredby Network Solutions, Inc. This case is closely related on the facts toThe Kittinger Company, Inc. v. James Fisgus (AF00108a and b).
The Parties
The Complainant is Kittinger Company, Inc. whose place of businessis at 2495 Main Street, Buffalo, NY 14214 and is represented by counselin this matter (Magavern, Magavern & Grimm, LLP of Buffalo, NY). Respondentis Kittinger Collector, with a place of business at 10876 Hillside RoadAlta Loma, CA 91737 and is represented by counsel in this matter (Ladas& Parry, Los Angeles, CA).
Procedural History
The Complaint was filed electronically on February 4, 2000. The detailsof the procedural record are found in the letter dated March 10, 2000 fromEmmanuelle Letourneau of eResolution to the Panelist (attached hereto).In addition to the filings detailed in the attached letter, the Partiesrequested permission to submit additional pleadings. The Panelist grantedthe request and the Complainant's Rebuttal was filed on March 28, 2000and the Respondent's Response to Complainant's Rebuttal was filed on April11, 2000. The panel also received an e-mail exchange between the partieson April 14, 2000.

Factual Background
The Complainant is a manufacturer of furniture and is the owner byassignment of Canadian Trademark Reg. No. TMA 278,127 for KITTINGER. Complainantis also owner of a U.S. trademark application for KITTINGER. Complainantis the owner of U.S. Reg. No. 1,124,516 for KITTINGER OLD DOMINION, therenewal application for which is pending due to a USPTO request for provisionof details concerning non-use of the mark. All of Complainant's marks arefor office furniture, dining room furniture, living room furniture andbedroom furniture. Respondent contests the ability of Complainant to benefitfrom the priority of the above registrations due the long history of serialassignments and period of non-use.
The Complainant is attempting to revive the fortunes of the KittingerCompany, which had fallen on hard times and ceased operations for a period.Respondent is in the business of purchasing, re-conditioning and re-sellingfurniture that was manufactured by the Complainant's predecessors. BothParties would likely agree that the Kittinger name is associated with highquality colonial reproduction furniture. The Parties disagree on whom mayuse variations on the Kittinger name as a domain name.
Under the UDRP paragraph 4(a) the Complainant bears the burden of provingthat:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademarkor service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respectof the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in badfaith.
Therefore the question before this panel is whether the Complainanthas met its burden with respect to the three elements.
(i) The panel finds that Complainant has partially met its burden withrespect to the first element. Although there appear to be issues regardingwhether the trademark rights of the Complainant have survived the seriesof assignments and non-use, Complainant is the owner of a subsisting CanadianRegistration for KITTINGER, a mark that is identical to the kittinger.comdomain name at issue.
With respect to the second domain at issue, kittingercollector.com,the panel finds that the domain name is not identical or confusingly similarto a trademark of the Complainant. The panel bases this finding on theevidence that the use of Complainant's trademark in this domain is purelynominative, that the domain name as a whole is descriptive of the Respondent'sbusiness and unlikely to cause confusion with Complainant's business.
(ii) The panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet its burdenwith respect to establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimateinterests in the domain names at issue. Respondent has used its domainsin connection with a business based on the acquisition, re-conditioningand re-sale of used Kittinger furniture. This is a legitimate businessthat Respondent has operated for many years. The Respondent is entitledto use the name Kittinger in a fair, nominative sense to describe the furnitureis sells and has made accommodations at the request of Complainant to preventpossible confusion. Moreover, this panel is bound by the UDRP paragraph4(c) which states in relevant part:
Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation,if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidencepresented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to thedomain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrablepreparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domainname in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have beencommonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademarkor service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of thedomain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divertconsumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. (emphasisadded)
The panel finds that the evidence submitted demonstrates that: theRespondent used the domain names at issue in connection with a bona fideoffering of goods and services before notice of this dispute; the Respondentis commonly known by the name Kittinger Collector; and, the Respondent'suse of the domains at issue is fair-use and not intended to divert customersor tarnish the trademark rights of the Complainant. Accordingly, the panelfinds the Complainant has not met its burden with respect to this element.
(iii) The panel finds that the Complainant has failed to meet its burdenin establishing that the domains at issue were registered and are beingused in bad faith. The UDRP lists the following circumstances as evidenceof a registration and use in bad faith in paragraph 4(b):
For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances,in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present,shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquiredthe domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwisetransferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is theowner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant,for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costsdirectly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the ownerof the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a correspondingdomain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct;or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purposeof disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted toattract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or otheron-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant'smark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of yourweb site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
(i) The panel finds that the domains at issue were not acquired forthe purpose of sale to Complainant or a competitor of Complainant and thatthe evidence supports the finding that the domains are not for sale.
(ii) The panel finds that the Respondent has not registered the domainnames at issue to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in acorresponding domain name nor has Respondent engaged in a pattern of suchconduct. The panel notes that the Respondent has registered 4 domain namesthat are the subject of UDRP proceedings. The two domain names at issuein the decision at hand and the kittenger.com and kittengerfurniture.comdomain names at issues in Case No. AF 00108 (a) and (b). The panel findsthat the evidence submitted does not show that domain registrations ofRespondent constitute a pattern of conduct intended to block Complainant'saccess to domain names that correspond to its marks.
(iii) The panel finds that the evidence submitted does not supportthe conclusion that Respondent registered the domain names at issue todisrupt the business of a competitor. The evidence submitted shows thatthe Parties are not in competition, as the Complainant does not sell usedfurniture.
(iv) The panel finds that the evidence does not show that Respondenthas intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet usersto its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant'smark. Respondent has taken reasonable steps to avoid potential confusionat the request of Complainant. The evidence shows that the Respondent seeksto distinguish its business from that of Complainant by only offering forsale furniture manufactured by Complainant's predecessors prior to 1995and actively works to prevent possible confusion.
As the Complainant has failed to prove any of the listed indicia ofbad faith or any other compelling evidence of bad faith, the panel findsthat the Complainant has not met its burden with respect to this element.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the panel concludes that the Complainanthas not met its burden of proof under the UDRP paragraph 4 (a). Accordingly,the panel finds the domain names kittingercollector.com and kittinger.comshould not be transferred to Complainant.
Domain Names not Transferred.

Reproduction furniture can be an affordable entry point to antiques auctions and choosing good quality, strong design and well-regarded manufacturers can also see a retention of value and growth potential over time.

What sometimes comes to mind when thinking about reproduction furniture is poorly constructed, flimsy furniture of indeterminate wood (think pecan wood, or Asian hardwood imports) and in a pastiche of styles never found in the historical period. Did Philadelphia mahogany armchairs really have rockers in the 1770s? I think not.

There are, however, some clear winners among reproductions. The following is a list of just a few of the many makers that I’ve been following for the past two decades in the marketplace.

Each with a unique story, all three manufacturers share similar characteristics in quality, design and finish that set them apart from most other firms. The use of well-chosen American hardwoods typical of the historical period, faithful reproductions of antique furniture forms, and good quality construction and cast hardware distinguish their furniture. Examples by these furniture manufactures are worth seeking out at auction houses or antique shops, and make desirable, affordable additions to any collection.

Wallace Nutting, Framingham, MA

active circa 1918-1930s

Best known for his hand-colored photographs, Nutting was an author and scholar of Early American Furniture & Decorative Art, and his firm produced bench-made furniture forms from Windsor chairs to highboys. Pieces will usually bear a paper label (early) or more typical branded mark with his name.

Kittinger Furniture Company, Buffalo, NY

active circa 1866-1995, 1999-present

Kittinger Furniture Serial Numbers In Numbers

The most sought after forms by this maker are faithful reproductions of 18th century pieces made under license for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (1937-1990) and the Newport Preservation Society. Pieces are characterized by attention to period detail.

Irving & Casson — A. H. Davenport Company, Boston & East Cambridge, MA

Kittinger Furniture Serial Numbers List

active individually and jointly from the 1870s

These two well-regarded Boston area furniture manufactures were active in commercial decorating for public and private buildings. They produced architectural designs and White House commissions for Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. They’re known for great quality construction and ornamental brass hardware.

Kittinger Furniture For Sale

Skinner Lot Alert is a great way to get notified when pieces by any of these makers (or those of your choosing) are posted to the Skinner website for an upcoming auction. Reproduction furniture can be a great auction buy and above all, antiques are green, perhaps the ultimate form of reuse and repurposing!