Eastbay, Inc. v. he chun feng et al.
Claim Number: FA1604001670359




   Complainant: Eastbay, Inc. of New York, NY, NY, United States of America
Complainant Representative: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Amy Gaven of New York, NY, United States of America

   Respondent: chunfeng he of Dong Guan, China


   Registries: DotOnline Inc.


   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.
   David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: April 13, 2016
   Commencement: April 13, 2016
   Response Date: April 16, 2016
   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").


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


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Findings of Fact: Complainant, Eastbay, Inc. (“Eastbay”), is a premium retailer of athletic footwear, apparel and related goods and services in the United States. Eastbay owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the well-known and incontestable EASTBAY marks (U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,304,300, 1,962,110 and 2,970,015), registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other countries worldwide (the “Marks”). Respondent, "he chun feng", whose name as written in Chinese characters is unknown, timely filed a Response written in simplified Chinese characters on 16 April 2016. The Examiner fluently speaks and reads Chinese, in addition to his native English.


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS] 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 disputed domain name EASTBAY.ONLINE is identical to Complainant's Mark "Eastbay", registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating the Marks and use of the Disputed Domain Name is likely to result in consumer confusion. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name because it is not a licensee of Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s Marks.

[URS] 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 Examiner finds that Complainant has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain name on March 24, 2016 despite receiving notification that the disputed domain name matched Complainant's Marks registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Respondent would have been required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledgment Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the name. At the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name, therefore, Respondent was aware of Complainant’s trademarks. Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, primarily for the purpose of unfairly disrupting Complainant’s business. Respondent's purported defense that "the principle of international domain name registration is 'whoever registers first, prevails'" is without merit under these facts.


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

Respondent has alleged 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. 


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. eastbay.online


David L. Kreider Esq,
Dated: April 18, 2016



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page