URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Wolford Aktiengesellschaft v. dawei et al.
Claim Number: FA1705001733550
DOMAIN NAME
<wolforde.store>
PARTIES
Complainant: Wolford Aktiengesellschaft of Bregenz, Austria | |
Complainant Representative: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG
Pascal Boehner of München, Germany
|
Respondent: dawei Da Wei Xie of Hangzhou, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotStore 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. | |
David J. Steele Esq., 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: [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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The domain name is confusing similar to Complainant's mark, merely adding a single letter "e" to the mark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent's use of the domain name is to impersonate Complainant, claiming to operate an "Official" site selling Complainant's goods. The website further copies the look and feel of Complainant's website, and copies various product photos of Complaiant's goods. This is not a bona fide use of the domain name nor does it establish any lawful rights under the policy.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant As discussed above, Respondent is using the domain name to impersonate Complainant. This use clearly supports a finding of bad faith under the policy. 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:
|
David J. Steele Esq. Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page