URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
TREND FIN B.V v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2208002010373
DOMAIN NAME
<we-fashion.xyz>
PARTIES
Complainant: TREND FIN B.V of Utrecht, Netherlands | |
Complainant Representative: WAALWEAR BRANDS S.à r.l
BENOÎT . NASR of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
|
Respondent: Tao Yu of Zhejiang Province, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC | |
Registrars: 1API GmbH |
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. | |
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 31, 2022 | |
Commencement: September 1, 2022 | |
Default Date: September 16, 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
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: The Complainant does not allege multiple Complainants. | ||
Multiple Respondents: The Complainant does not allege multiple Respondents. |
Findings of Fact: The Complainant is the exclusive owner of the WE trademarks registered and used throughout the world since 1962, notably for clothing and fashion accessories. The Complainant has 148 physical WE stores and runs the international website www.wefashion.com. The trademark registrations of the Complainant include registrations solely consisting of the design “WE†as well as combined registrations such as “WE FASHIONâ€. The Complainant claimed that the domain name used by the Respondent is confusingly similar to their WE trademarks. The Complainant also asserted that the disputed domain name leads to a clone of the Complainant website where the Complainant’s trademark and logo are reproduced and supposedly counterfeit products bearing the Complainant’s trademark are offered for sale. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “WE†and “WE FASHION†for which the Complainant holds valid registrations in various jurisdictions including Benelux as well as United Kingdom and European Union countries, [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant has clearly stated that the contested domain name “we-fashion.xyz†was registered without permission and that they did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “WE†and “WE FASHION†trademarks. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the the “WE†and “WE FASHION†trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant It is obvious that by using the domain name Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to their web site and attempted to create a likelihood of confusion of the Complainant’s trademark. The web site of the Respondent offers counterfeit products of the Complainant bearing that the Complainant’s trademark is offered for sale. It is possible to say that the Respondent harms the commercial reputation of the Complainant and tries to take advantage of it unfairly. Furthermore, it seems that the Respondent reproduces the Complainant’s “WE†(device) logo which is registered in Benelux. In addition, it is not possible to think that the Respondent does not know the Complainant’s trademark "WE FASHION", which is well-known all over the world. Lastly, considering the level of recognition reached by the trademark as a result of its long-term use, it is clear that the Respondent aims to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. 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:
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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page