URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Wolford Aktiengesellschaft v. Li Wei Wei
Claim Number: FA1705001733548


DOMAIN NAME

<wolfordshop.online>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Wolford Aktiengesellschaft of Bregenz, Austria
  
Complainant Representative: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Pascal Boehner of München, Germany

   Respondent: Li Wei Wei Li Wei Wei of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotOnline Inc.
   Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)

EXAMINER


   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: May 27, 2017
   Commencement: May 30, 2017
   Default Date: June 14, 2017
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: The Complainant is one of the world’s leading producers and suppliers of high class hosiery, legwear and bodywear. It was founded already in 1950 and is based in Bregenz, Austria. Its products are available in more than 260 own and partner operated boutiques in around 60 countries, and more than 3000 selected trading partners around the world and online.

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant is owner of the mark WOLFORD. The disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s mark, as it merely combines the mark with generic terms (shop/online).


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Defendant is using the disputed domain name for selling or at least advertising hosiery, legwear and bodywear, under the Complainant’s mark WOLFORD. It also pretends to be the „Official Wolford Online Shop“. But Defendant is unknown to the Complainant and Defendant is by no means authorised by the Complainant to act as its „Official Wolford Online Shop“. Such use of the disputed domain name does not establish legitimate rights or interests.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Defendant is trying to mislead Internet users as to the source of the products offered, by pretending to be an „official“ online shop, authorised by or otherwise related to the Complainant. By using the domain name, Defendant thus has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of this website.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. wolfordshop.online

 

Richard W. Hill
Examiner
Dated: June 14, 2017

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page