Although trademark holders are not limited territorially in maintaining a proceeding under the UDRP – a “complainant’s showing of secondary meaning within a limited geographical area will be sufficient to invoke all of the rights and protections of the Policy,” Party Maniacs, Inc. v. Michael Kuklinski, FA0904001258597 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 2, 2009) – the location of the parties’ respective home residences may influence the Panel’s decision in answering the question of respondent’s knowledge. Geographic remoteness may support a respondent’s allegation that it lacks knowledge of a complainant and its mark. At the very least a complainant has to show that “Respondent was (or was likely to have been) aware of the existence of the Complainant,” Rusconi Editore S.P.A. v. Bestinfo, D2001-0656 (WIPO July 5, 2001). Geographically separated parties even in the same industry can conceivably have no knowledge of the other’s existence. Roco Modellspielwaren GmbH and Dipl.‑Wirt.‑Ing. (FH) Peter Maedgdefrau v. Plantraco Ltd., D2005‑0112 (WIPO April 8, 2005) (<minitank.com>). Unless the trademark has demonstrably traveled out of its jurisdiction there is no reason to discredit a respondent’s denial of knowledge. University of Maryland University College v. NUCOM Domain Brokers & Urban Music Underground Club, D2002-0081 (WIPO April 29, 2002) (<umuc.com>):
The Panel cannot infer that a registrant in Scotland would know of the fame of the Complainant’s mark at the date of registration.... The case is no different from the many WIPO cases where a trademark owner in Country A is unable to produce evidence from which a Panel can infer that a domain name registrant in Country B would or should have known of the fame of the mark.
In Party Maniacs the parties operated in a niche business in the same geographic territory. That was not the case in EURO DATA GmbH & Co. KG v. Excel Signs, D2009‑0465 (WIPO May 5, 2009) (<eurodata.com>). Remoteness of the parties was determinative. The parties resided in Germany and the U.S. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent “should have known” its trademark, but failed to explain “how exactly the Respondent should have known, in view of the Respondent’s claim that the term “eurodata” is not very distinctive, fanciful or arbitrary as such, is widely used by many others than Complainant and that the Respondent is unfamiliar with the Complainant and its trademarks.”
Nevertheless, there are tell tale signs when the respondent’s registration is not adventitious, but the domain name has been chosen with the complainant’s trademark in mind. BzzAgent, Inc. v. Bzzing, Inc., Diego Berdakin, D2009‑0295 (WIPO April 22, 2009) (<bzzing.com>, the Complainant resides in California, the Respondent resides in Massachusetts) argued that “bzzing” was generic in the marketing industry and it was using the term descriptively, “word of mouth.” However, the Respondent’s denials were implausible where there was evidence that its website copied content from the Complainant’s website.
As remoteness requires more from the complainant so nearness geographically requires more from the respondent. It is not sufficient for the complainant to assert (but not have evidence to prove) that its trademark has traveled to distant shores or the respondent to deny awareness.