Aspinal of London Limited v. dawei
Claim Number: FA1706001737615
Complainant: Aspinal of London Limited of West Sussex, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: Bird & Bird LLP of London, United Kingdom.
Respondent: dawei of Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 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 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.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 28, 2017
Commencement: June 28, 2017
Default Date: July 13, 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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of Fact: Complainant submitted evidence of a EU word trademark “ASPINAL OF LONDON”, registered on November 27, 2008 (number 006493861), owned by Complainant and valid for classes 3, 4, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 25.
Complainant also submitted evidence of a EU figurative trademark (number 006493852). The Examiner notes that URS Procedure 1.2.6 specifically refers to word trademarks only, so will not take this figurative trademark into consideration in the determination of the current dispute.
Complainant has submitted evidence of use of its word trademark.
The disputed domain name was created on May 14, 2017, well after the registration of Complainant’s word trademark.
Complainant claims that it is involved in the design, manufacture and retail of luxury leather goods, including handbags, wallets and purses, under the brand name 'Aspinal of London'. The Complainant claims that it enjoys significant reputation and goodwill in its brand. These claims are not refuted by the Respondent.
Complainant claims that Respondent's website is effectively a clone of its own website and seems to offer counterfeit ‘Aspinal of London’ products for sale. Again, this claim is not refuted by the Respondent. Complainant has submitted a screenshot of Respondent’s website as evidence to support its claim.
Complainant claims that Respondent's email address is associated with 161 other domain names and that Respondent's name is associated with around 153 other domain names, many of which are believed to be confusingly similar to well-known third party trademarks. Complainant has submitted the results of a reverse WHOIS search to support its claim. Again, this claim is not refuted by the Respondent.
Even though 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.
Legal findings:
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name is 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
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The domain name consists of Complainant’s word trademark paired with the generic top level domain “.store” and the letter “e”.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant claims that it has never consented to Respondent’s use of its intellectual property rights. Complainant claims in general terms that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent did not refute this claim. Respondent did not file a response and did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use Complainant’s trademark. There is no indication that Respondent is otherwise related to Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of Respondent being commonly known as “Aspinal of London” or “Aspinal of Londone” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was 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. URS 1.2.6.3 (b), (c) and (d) apply to the domain name at issue.
Complainant submitted evidence that Respondent engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby Respondent apparently registered numerous domain names in order to prevent trademark holders from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names. Such conduct seems to apply to the disputed domain name as well. Complainant also submitted evidence that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to sell goods that are similar to the goods that Complainant is selling. Complainant claims that the goods sold by Respondent are in effect counterfeits of its own products. Such claim seems to be supported by the evidence submitted by Complainant, and is not refuted by Respondent. In general terms, there are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: July 13, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page