The domain name dispute follows a contractual wrangle between Foreman, who became heavyweight champion of the world in both 1973 and, remarkably, 1994, and a food company that was keen to use Foreman's name to market its products.
Since leaving boxing, Foreman has found wealth and renewed fame by endorsing products – most notably the grill produced by US marketers Salton Inc.
The former champion's marketing repertoire has now moved beyond electrical products, and includes clothes and cleaning products. Low-fat, grill-compatible foods were also in Foreman's sights, when he signed an agreement with food company George Foreman Foods to endorse some of their products.
But according to reports, the two parties fell out last year over the types of food involved and the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers.
In September, Salton, the company behind Foreman's most famous endorsement, filed a complaint with the domain name dispute service of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) over the food company's continued use of the boxer's name in its web address, georgeforeman.com, arguing that this breached Salton's registered trade marks in the name.
In response, George Foreman Foods argued that Foreman had originally registered the domain name and had granted the company a licence to use the name in January 2003. Accordingly it had a legitimate interest in using the domain.
It also said the use of the domain was not likely to create confusion between Salton's products and its own, which related only to food. Rather, said George Foreman Foods, users were more likely to understand that Mr Foreman is associated with the web site.
Not so, said Salton, arguing that the licence had been terminated and that, accordingly, the company's use of the domain now created a "likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site".
The food company disputed this, pointing out that the licence agreement with George Foreman was under arbitration and that until the agreement was "ruled terminated" then George Foreman Foods would continue to have rights under that agreement.
The WIPO panellist agreed, finding that while the domain was confusingly similar to Salton's trade marks, George Foreman Foods did still have rights in the domain name, "albeit subject to the outcome of the arbitration."
Accordingly, the complaint was denied.