2 official ivanko website?

[davidoff1974]

ivankobarbell says it was founded by tom lincir

ivanko . com says it was established by adam auerbach

So which is the real deal?

[dumb.bell]

ivankobarbell says it was founded by tom lincir

ivanko . com says it was established by adam auerbach

So which is the real deal?

Ivankobarbell.com is the Company site. I don't know the specifics, but I believe Ivanko.com used to belong to an Ivanko distributor and there was a dispute over the domain name. I think the site still belongs to the former distributor but he no longer sells Ivanko products. The site merely lists products now (I assume there is some sort of agreement between the parties). Someone else may know more and be able to shed further light on the subject. Nevertheless, if you are trying to contact Ivanko, use the Ivankobarbell.com site or PM Vinko (forum ID Ivankobarbellco) on this forum. It may take him a few days to get back to you, but he is very helpful.

[BumperPlates]

Yes there was a dispute over the domain name.

Here is a copy of the message that was added in place of the previous content on my website shortly after the dispute began alerting my customers of the situation.

May 13, 2008

To our valued customers,

I am very disappointed to have to share that after 17 years of proudly and professionally representing the Ivanko Barbell Company as one of its largest-volume authorized distributors, Ivanko has recently terminated my dealer status and refused to fill any further purchase orders for my customers. Ivanko took this action against me and my customers because I refused to "surrender" to Ivanko the domain www .ivanko.com, which I established in 1997 with Ivanko's consent, and which I have maintained with Ivanko's acquiescence and entirely at my own expense for the past 12 years.

We deeply regret that we can no longer fill our customers' product orders directly from Ivanko as a result of Ivanko's actions. However, as a courtesy to our customers and consistent with our high standards of customer service, we will be happy to refer you to another Ivanko dealer if you so desire. Based on our 17 years of experience with the Ivanko product line, we will also continue to provide consultation and advice to our customers concerning their Ivanko products.

Although we are no longer able to provide products sourced directly from Ivanko, we do offer a variety of used genuine Ivanko products. Please visit our product line area for more information.

We also realize that many of you may find it necessary to contact us in case you have questions related to previously placed orders. Therefore we feel it is our obligation to maintain our contact information here in the event you need to contact us. We will not abandon you as our customer!

We are in the process of contacting our customers with pending orders containing Ivanko equipment sourced directly from Ivanko(prior to Ivanko terminating our dealer status) in order to assist them with the cancellation and refund process. All orders containing equipment not specifically manufactured by Ivanko are not affected and will be processed as normal! If you are our customer and have a pending Ivanko equipment order that was placed prior to Ivanko terminating our dealer status, please contact us at your earliest convenience so we can make arrangements to cancel your order and refer you to the appropriate dealer who will be able to assist you with a new Ivanko equipment order.

I personally want to thank each and everyone one of you for all the years of loyalty and support.

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

Adam Auerbach, CSCS
www .ivanko com
info@ivanko com

[BumperPlates]

Here is a copy of the result of the dispute. The forum.bodybuilding.com is preventing me from directly hyperlinking to the site, which is the reason for having to cut and paste the information instead.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
*
DECISION
*
Ivanko Barbell Company v. Syclone Corporation c/o Adam Auerbach
Claim Number: FA0805001191122
*
PARTIES
Complainant is Ivanko Barbell Company (“Complainant”), represented by Michael A. Painter, of Isaacman, Kaufman & Painter, California, USA.* Respondent is Syclone Corporation c/o Adam Auerbach (“Respondent”), represented by Julie M. McCoy, of Law Office of Julie M. McCoy, California, USA.
*
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME*
The domain name at issue is <ivanko.com>, registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd.
*
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
*
John J. Upchurch, Honorable Paul A. Dorf (retired) and Joel M. Grossman as Panelists.
*
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 15, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 16, 2008.
*
On May 18, 2008, Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <ivanko.com> domain name is registered with Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.* Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Fabulous.com Pty Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
*
On May 23, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of June 12, 2008 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ivanko.com by e-mail.
*
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on June 12, 2008.
*
Complainant filed a timely Additional Submission on June 17, 2008.* Respondent filed a timely Additional Submission on June 20, 2008.
*
On June 23, 2008, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch, Hon. Paul A. Dorf (retired) and Joel M. Grossman as Panelists.
*
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
*
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1.** The disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s IVANCO mark.
2.***** Respondent is no longer authorized to use Complainant’s mark, and thus has no rights and legitimate interests to maintain the domain name.
3.***** Respondent uses and maintains the domain name in bad faith.
*
B. Respondent
1.* It is conceded that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
2.***** Respondent was asked by Complainant to launch a website to market Complainant’s goods, and did so with Complainant’s permission, cooperation and support, operating the website under these circumstances for over seven years, when Complainant sought to revoke its consent.
3.***** Complainant made no reservation or exception to its long standing consent permitting Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name; and, accordingly, the same was not registered and used in bad faith.
*
C. Additional Submissions
1.** Complainant – Respondent’s use and ownership of the domain name was terminable upon request of the Complainant; the distinctiveness of the IVANCO trademark has been gained over use for many years; and Respondent’s use has resulted in numerous examples of actual confusion.
2.** Respondent – Sale of used IVANCO equipment does not constitute trademark infringement; Complainant has not established each of the elements of its case; i.e., registration and use in bad faith and lack of legitimate rights and interests of Respondent.
*
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish each of the three elements necessary to prevail.
*
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
*
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
*
(1)** the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(2)** the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3)** the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
*
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
*
Complainant asserts rights in the IVANKO mark based on its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,201,283 issued July 13, 1982).* The Panel determines that this trademark registration adequately conveys rights in the mark to Complainant for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).* See Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO); see also Honeywell Int’l Inc. v. r9.net, FA 445594 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (“Complainant’s numerous registrations for its HONEYWELL mark throughout the world are sufficient to establish Complainant’s rights in the HONEYWELL mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
*
The Panel finds that the <ivanko.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s IVANKO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as the disputed domain name contains Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adds the generic top-level domain “.com.”* See Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Ohno, FA 511463 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 23, 2005) (holding that the <reebok.net> domain name was identical to the complainant’s REEBOK mark because it fully incorporates the mark and merely adds a generic top-level domain); see also Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Indus. Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s <treeforms.com> domain name is identical to the complainant’s TREEFORMS mark).
*
Respondent admits that Complainant has a trademark registration for the IVANKO mark.* Respondent makes no other relevant arguments with regard to Policy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
*
Rights or Legitimate Interests
*
Complainant admits that Respondent was authorized to register the <ivanko.com> domain name, incorporating Complainant’s mark, to sell Complainant’s goods, at the time at which the disputed domain name was registered.* Accordingly, Respondent certainly at one time had rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.* However, it is unclear whether Respondent still has such rights in view of the fact that Complainant has terminated Respondent as an approved distributor as of May 8, 2008.* The panel need not reach a decision on this point given the lack of bad faith registration, as discussed immediately below.
*
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
*
The Panel finds that Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).* See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen Graman Indus. Co. FA 133676 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that general allegations of bad faith without supporting facts or specific examples do not supply a sufficient basis upon which the panel may conclude that the respondent acted in bad faith).
*
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires that the disputed domain name have been both registered and used in bad faith in order to show that Respondent violated this portion of the Policy.* The Panel determines that as Respondent was authorized by Complainant to register the disputed domain name, bad faith registration can not be shown, and thus, Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).* See Hewlett Packard Co. v. Napier, FA 94368 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 28, 2000) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that the respondent registered the domain name <openview.org> in bad faith where the complainant acquiesced to the respondent’s registration and use of the domain name); see also Thread.com, LLC v. Poploff, D2000-1470 (WIPO Jan. 5, 2001) (finding that a respondent did not register a disputed domain name in bad faith where it “registered the Domain Name with the full consent and knowledge of Complainant” and therefore “did not have the requisite bad faith when he registered the Domain Name, which is an express requirement of the Policy”).
*
The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of a disclaimer on the website that resolves from the <ivanko.com> domain name indicates that the disputed domain name was not used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).* See Al-Anon Family Group Headquarters Inc. v. Reid, D2000-0232 (WIPO June 5, 2000) (refusing to find bad faith where the respondent conspicuously informs viewers that his site is not affiliated with the complainant and alternatively finding that such a disclaimer is evidence of good faith on the part of the respondent which precludes any determination that the respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Off Rd. Equip. Parts, FA 95497 (Nat. Arb. Forum* Oct. 10, 2000) (finding no bad faith when the respondent put a very visible disclaimer on its website located at <catparts.com> , because the disclaimer eliminated any possibility that the respondent was attempting to imply an affiliation with the complainant and the complainant’s CATERPILLAR mark).
*
DECISION
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
*
************************************************** ********* ***********************
*
John J. Upchurch, Chairman
Hon. Paul A. Dorf (retired), Panelist
Joel M. Grossman, Panelist
Dated:* July 22, 2008

[ProtienandIron]

I am very disappointed to have to share that after 17 years of proudly and professionally representing the Ivanko Barbell Company as one of its largest-volume authorized distributors, Ivanko had terminated my dealer status and refused to fill any further purchase orders for my customers. Ivanko took this action against me and my customers because I refused to "surrender" to Ivanko the domain ivanko.com, which I established in 1997 with Ivanko's consent, and which I have maintained with Ivanko's acquiescence and entirely at my own expense for the past 12 years.


Disclaimer: Syclone Corporation and Adam Auerbach have no affiliation with Ivanko Barbell Company.

Well, in fairness to Ivanko, don't you think they should be aloud to have the .com name of the product they produce??? Of course they arent going to support you- you lived off thier name!!! ...whether you paid for the sites upkeep or not, its just not right. It wouldnt surprise me if most of your previous customers didn't even know they were dealing with a distibutor instead of Ivanko themselves.

Tough $hit I say.

Talk about 'bite the hand that feeds you'!

[KBKB]

I've been bitten by this when looking for Ivanko equipment. I think it's unfortunate that Ivanko Barbell was unsuccessful in their attempt to claim ivanko.com.

If you go to http://ivanko.com/about_us.html, there's really nothing there that indicates that you're not dealing with the Ivanko, the manufacturer. This seems deliberately misleading to me.

[BumperPlates]

This is not a case of cybersquatting. Please consider researching the facts and law before making an opinion.

Well, in fairness to Ivanko, don't you think they should be aloud to have the .com name of the product they produce??? Of course they arent going to support you- you lived off thier name!!! ...whether you paid for the sites upkeep or not, its just not right. It wouldnt surprise me if most of your previous customers didn't even know they were dealing with a distibutor instead of Ivanko themselves.

Tough $hit I say.

Talk about 'bite the hand that feeds you'!

[ProtienandIron]

This is not a case of cybersquatting. Please consider researching the facts and law before making an opinion.

I understand that, but as we all know, the laws an a$$. Its about ethics. Ethics towards Ivanko, and ethics towards your customers. Hell, I reckon you both could have just swapped domain names and it would have been ok. But if I type in Ivanko.com ...I want it to lead me to the people that make it, not a distributor.

[BumperPlates]

A clear disclaimer can be found in the legal section at the bottom of the website.

I've been bitten by this when looking for Ivanko equipment. I think it's unfortunate that ivankobarbell.com/"]Ivanko Barbell was unsuccessful in their attempt to claim ivanko.com.

If you go to ivanko.com/about_us.htm, there's really nothing there that indicates that you're not dealing with the Ivanko, the manufacturer. This seems deliberately misleading to me.

[ProtienandIron]

A clear disclaimer can be found in the legal section at the bottom of the website.

Thats good.... because people always go stright to the legal section on a website.

[BumperPlates]

How am I a troll for making a clarification? Again you are raising an opinion without knowing the facts. After a tremendous investment in my capital, effort and time, I had built a loyal customer base and established numerous business relationships and in my opinion, only to have been ultimately ground and pounded by an 800 lb corporate gorilla when the business became ripe for the picking. Have you heard of acquiescence?

I understand that, but as we all know, the laws an a$$. Its about ethics. Ethics towards Ivanko, and ethics towards your customers. Hell, I reckon you both could have just swapped domain names and it would have been ok. But if I type in Ivanko.com ...I want it to lead me to the people that make it, not a distributor.

Unfortunatly for you, the real Ivanko frequents these forums and contributes. You my friend, are a troll.

[KBKB]

Thats good.... because people always go stright to the legal section on a website.

Especially when said link is blue text over an only slightly darker blue background - well, that's how it shows up for me anyway.

[BumperPlates]

I was given a great opportunity and I made the most of it while remaining both legal and ethical. Ivanko didn't have a web presence until several years later and actually printed my website domain name at the bottom of many of their articles and advertisements in popular fitness and trade journal magazines. I would be happy to attach examples if the moderator would permit me to do so. If they were so keen to acquire my domain name, perhaps it would have best to do so early on when my internet business was in its infancy. Roughly 12 years afterwards I had to defend myself in an ICANN arbitration.

Especially when said link is blue text over an only slightly darker blue background - well, that's how it shows up for me anyway.

[twirp]

Thats good.... because people always go stright to the legal section on a website.

They go to the FAQ section silly. They must do it while in the store, or maybe while buying on craigslist.

Like when you buy IVANKO stuff at a store, you are expected to immediately go to their FAQ section to find out that it isn't really IVANKO at all, but IMPEX, even though it says IVANKO right on it! Surprise, sucker!


.. someone was saying something about ethics?

[BumperPlates]

For what it's worth, I'm not some Joe Schmo used car salesman trying to make a quick buck at selling exercise equipment. I still make my living selling exercise equipment through various means and completely enjoy what I do. I've been lifting seriously practically my entire life. I competed Nationally in both Olympic Lifting and Powerlifting including being an IPF Junior World Team member in 1988 in Luxembourg and a previous IPF Junior World record holder in the deadlift at 148 lbs. I also earned my Certified Strength & Conditioning Specialist(CSCS) credentials as well as my US Weightlifting Club Coach Certification.

[BumperPlates]

Hmmm, that's weird, it appears white text on blue background on my computer. Guess it depends on the browser and version.

Especially when said link is blue text over an only slightly darker blue background - well, that's how it shows up for me anyway.

[KBKB]

Hmmm, that's weird, it appears white text on blue background on my computer. Guess it depends on the browser and version.

Yeah, it seems to depend on the browser. I tried it with Firefox and it showed up as white on blue. But with Google Chrome, it shows up as blue on blue. Once you click on the link though, it's white thereafter.

[BumperPlates]

I'll consult the web designer and see about getting that issue rectified so it appears the same universally.

UPDATE: This has since been fixed. If anyone's browser doesn't show white text on a blue background, please kindly advise so I can bring to my web designer's attention.

Yeah, it seems to depend on the browser. I tried it with Firefox and it showed up as white on blue. But with Google Chrome, it shows up as blue on blue. Once you click on the link though, it's white thereafter.

[sherman]

I've been bitten by this when looking for Ivanko equipment. I think it's unfortunate that Ivanko Barbell was unsuccessful in their attempt to claim ivanko.com.

If you go to http://ivanko.com/about_us.html, there's really nothing there that indicates that you're not dealing with the Ivanko, the manufacturer. This seems deliberately misleading to me.

"Established in 1997 by Adam Auerbach, C.S.C.S., our web site proudly offers for sale genuine Ivanko Barbell weightlifting equipment."

The web site is misleading, but does not claim to be Ivanko. Of course, other than clearance items, you can't buy anything at ivankobarbell.com.

[BumperPlates]

I wasn't aware visiting a FAQ section was required protocol for e commerce.

They go to the FAQ section silly. They must do it while in the store, or maybe while buying on craigslist.

Like when you buy IVANKO stuff at a store, you are expected to immediately go to their FAQ section to find out that it isn't really IVANKO at all, but IMPEX, even though it says IVANKO right on it! Surprise, sucker!


.. someone was saying something about ethics?

[dumb.bell]

I don't know anymore about this situation than I stated in my first post, but since no one else jumped in with an explanation, I'm assuming no one else here knows much about the dispute either.

I own quite a few Ivanko products and when I've dealt with someone from their company have been pleased with their customer service. I think they make some great products.

However, I have also called the number on the Ivanko.com website to try and purchase Ivanko products. The gentleman that answered the phone was very helpful, stating that he was no longer a distributor of their products and instructed me on how to contact Ivanko. He was nothing but complimentary towards Ivanko and their products.

Since I have limited knowledge of this conflict, I'm not going to pass judgement either way. I can only say that my dealings with both parties has been positive.

[BumperPlates]

Kind of weird to think, I probably possess more technical information on Ivanko equipment than anyone in the entire universe aside from Ivanko themselves!

I don't know anymore about this situation than I stated in my first post, but since no one else jumped in with an explanation, I'm assuming no one else here knows much about the dispute either.

I own quite a few Ivanko products and when I've dealt with someone from their company have been pleased with their customer service. I think they make some great products.

However, I have also called the number on the Ivanko.com website to try and purchase Ivanko products. The gentleman that answered the phone was very helpful, stating that he was no longer a distributor of their products and instructed me on how to contact Ivanko. He was nothing but complimentary towards Ivanko and their products.

Since I have limited knowledge of this conflict, I'm not going to pass judgement either way. I can only say that my dealings with both parties has been positive.

[BumperPlates]

I never said I didn't provide Ivanko equipment. Again, please consider researching the facts and law before making an opinion.

LoL.....sometimes you lose win you win, don't you, bub?

The law was on your side concerning the website....but as it is, apparently a site without products is interwebz wasteland.

I wouldn't let you sell my stuff either if this is the route you chose to take. You bit the proverbial hand that fed ya.

Enjoy your ivanko.com site....that doesn't sell Ivanko stuff.

[Keetman]

I never said I didn't provide Ivanko equipment. Again, please consider researching the facts and law before making an opinion.

Whatever. I personally don't care for the situation and something smells. However, dumb.bell's post made me think about it and I removed my post.

Of course, you quoted it so there it stands......I still don't blame Ivanko for wanting to separate themselves from you.....it would be considered reasonable to think that "ivanko.com" belongs to them. (By an uninformed customer, not the law...I realize the law is on your side).

Without more facts....I'd have to say you aren't doing yourself any favors here, right or wrong.

[twirp]

I wasn't aware visiting a FAQ section was required protocol for e commerce.

Always consult the FAQ when dealing with the IVANKO brand. You never know what you're going to get. ivankobarbell.com/faq.html#entry29

[BumperPlates]

Please be very careful what you post as I take slanderous comments very seriously.

Whatever. I personally don't care for the situation and something smells. However, dumb.bell's post made me think about it and I removed my post.

Of course, you quoted it so there it stands......I still don't blame Ivanko for wanting to separate themselves from you.....it would be considered reasonable to think that "ivanko.com" belongs to them. (By an uninformed customer, not the law...I realize the law is on your side).

Without more facts....I'd have to say you aren't doing yourself any favors here, right or wrong.

[dumb.bell]

As previously stated, I don't know the facts, and I haven't heard Ivanko's side of the story.

But, I think people are getting hung up on the fact that the site is called Ivanko.com and that you would assume Ivanko would own the legal rights to this web page. However, you have to remember that when the internet was getting started (especially e-commerce), everyone wasn't on board. A lot of people were skeptical as to whether these type of stores would be able to compete against brick and mortar stores.

However, if the facts are as they have been stated (assume they are accurate for this discussion), that the web page was set up at the request of Ivanko with their knowledge and consent at a time when they didn't want to do it themselves, I don't see how you could argue that this guy did anything wrong. He set up the web page and distributed products for them. It appears that years down the road Ivanko wanted ownership of this web page and took this guy to arbitration. As it turns out the arbitrators sided with him (possibly for good reason).

Now Ivanko may have a compelling argument as to why the web page should be theirs, but I don't know what that argument is, so I can't make an an assumption that they are in the right just because I like their products and I have a positive perception of them.

All I'm really saying is that I don't understand all of the hostility against this guy. If we don't know the facts, how can we pass judgement, especially with the arbitrators coming down in his favor.

In these disputes, the facts are often cloudy with no clear right or wrong and two reputable individuals can often have differences in opinion.

[dumb.bell]

Please be very careful what you post as I take slanderous comments very seriously.

Lets try to relax a little.

[BumperPlates]

Are you inferring that Ivanko.com offers counterfeit Ivanko barbell equipment?

Always consult the FAQ when dealing with the IVANKO brand. You never know what you're going to get. ivankobarbell.com/faq.html#entry29

[permabear86]

Are you inferring that Ivanko.com offers counterfeit Ivanko barbell equipment?

You should sue him lol.