Wolford AG v. lu qiu ping
Claim Number: FA1801001767010
Complainant: Wolford AG of Bregenz, Austria.
Complainant Representative: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG of München, Germany.
Respondent: lu qiu ping of Hangzhou, International, CN.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotStore Inc.
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Petter Rindforth, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: January 15, 2018
Commencement: January 16, 2018
Default Date: January 31, 2018
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:
The Examiner finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the WOLFORD trademark, including:
- International Trademark registration No 213776 WOLFORD (word), registered on October 16, 1958, and renewed until October 16, 2018; covering goods in Class 25. The registration has 16 designated countries, including People's Republic of China.
The Complainant has provided evidence of use of the trademark, by screenshots from the Complainant’s active web site at www.wolfordshop.com.
There is no information on the Respondent, other than provided by the Complainant.
Legal Findings and Conclusion:
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.
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The Complainant met the standard sets out in 1.2.6.1. of the URS Procedure since the Complainant has proved its right to the valid International Trademark registration No 213776 WOLFORD (word), a trademark that is in current use.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is <wolfordoutlet>, as the added top-level domains – being a required element of every domain name – are generally irrelevant when assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar and in this case does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name thereby consists of the Complainant’s trademark, combined with the descriptive word “outlet”, indicating sale of the Complainant’s products.
The Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark WOLFORD.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Respondent does not have any rights in <wolfordoutlet.store>, as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing its registered and used trademark WOLFORD.
The Respondent is using <wolfordoutlet.store> for a web site offering similar products that those related to the Complainant’s trademark WOLFORD, as well as copied parts of the complainant’s web site. Such use can never be accepted as proving legitimate interests.
The Examiner finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <wolfordoutlet.store>.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is unknown to Complainant “except for previous URS/UDRP cases initiated against” the Respondent and the Complainant is not sure if the Respondent is actually selling any products, or if these products in such case are counterfeits.
The Examiner notes that the web site connected to the disputed domain name is presented by the Respondent as an “Official Wolford Online Shop”, which is obviously not correct.
The use of <wolfordoutlet.store> clearly indicates that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration of the domain name.
Although the Respondent has not responded, the use also indicates that the Respondent has registered and is using <wolfordoutlet.store> to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site.
The Examiner concludes that the Respondent has both registered and is using the disputed domain name <wolfordoutlet.store> in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<wolfordoutlet.store>
Petter Rindforth, Examiner
Dated: February 3, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page