“For All The Foregoing Reasons, The Complaint Is Denied.”

It’s 1996 and you’re a systems geek named Ken Woods. So, what do you register your domain name as? www.kens.com, of course.
Fast forward to 2005.

Ken’s Foods Inc. v. kens.com
[…]
The Complainant is a leading producer of salad dressings and other sauces, sold under the registered trademark KEN’S. The mark, which the Complainant registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on April�29,�1980, has been used in commerce since 1961. The Complainant is the registered owner of the domain name , and operates a website on which it promotes and offers for sale various products sold under the KEN’S mark. The Complainant also offers its products for sale through retail outlets.
The disputed domain name was registered on February�7,�1996. Until quite recently, the disputed domain name has been used to direct Internet users to a personal website maintained by Ken Woods.1 Websites of this nature are commonly referred to as “blogs” or weblogs. A blog essentially is a diary or journal, typically written in a personal tone, where the writer or “blogger” presents his or her observations on various topics. Blogs typically contain links to other websites as well.
[…]
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to its KEN’S mark. According to the Complainant, the KEN’S mark is well known in the grocery industry, the mark is arbitrary and fanciful, and thus is entitled to the highest level of protection.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that its rights in the mark entitle it to the exclusive use of KEN’S as a domain name. Given that the mark was first used in commerce 35 years before the registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent was aware of its rights in the mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered, or at least had constructive notice of the mark in view of the mark’s registration some 16 years prior to the domain name’s registration.
Even if the disputed domain name incorporates the personal name of the registrant, the Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in using the domain name to operate a blog as a platform to “rant and rave, utter obscenities, display pornography and links to pornography, and solicit the sale of the domain name for an exorbitant price”.
[…]
The Complainant does assert that the Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name to the Complainant at an exorbitant price. The record, however, reflects no direct communications between the Respondent and the Complainant regarding the sale of the domain name at any time during the nine years that the Respondent has owned the domain name. The only evidence to support the Complainant’s contention is a statement recently posted by the Respondent in his weblog that he has received offers for the domain name, that he is not interested in selling the domain name for less than $10,000, and that the Complainant should consider buying the domain name because, in the Respondent’s opinion, the Complainant’s customers “are not smart enough to use google”.

Heh. That’s our Kenny.