URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Seafolly IP Co Pty Ltd et al. v. et al.
Claim Number: FA2209002010856


DOMAIN NAME

<seafolly.online>
 <seafolly.shop>
 <seafolly.website>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Seafolly Pty Ltd of Alexandria NSW, Australia
  
Complainant Representative: K&L Gates Jonathan Feder of Melbourne VIC, Australia

   Respondent: Wang Ming Jun of jia xing shi, zhe jiang, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Radix FZC,GMO Registry, Inc.
   Registrars: INWX GmbH,Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd.

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.
   Lars Karnøe, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: September 4, 2022
   Commencement: September 7, 2022
   Default Date: September 22, 2022
   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: [OptionalComment]

  

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 has, to the satisfaction of the Examiner, shown the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark SEAFOLLY in which the Complainant has rights. It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as ".com", ".org" or in casu ".online", ".shop" and ".website" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Examiner, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use his trademarks in a domain name or on a website, this is not disputed by the Respondent. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.


[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 Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Examiner, shown the disputed name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the character and documented use of the trademark SEAFOLLY by the Complainant and the Respondent, it is clear and not disputed by the Respondent, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings. The disputed domain name seems merely to be registered to generate traffic in an obvious attempt to trade off of the fame of the trademarks of the Complainant. All these elements leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion or association with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website by the Complainant.


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. seafolly.online
  2. seafolly.shop
  3. seafolly.website

 

Lars Karnøe
Examiner
Dated: September 26, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page