URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Seafolly IP Co. Pty Ltd (formerly known as P & Y Halas Pty Limited) v. 罗元凡
Claim Number: FA1712001762108
DOMAIN NAME
<seafolly.vip>
PARTIES
Complainant: Seafolly IP Co. Pty Ltd (formerly known as P & Y Halas Pty Limited) of ALEXANDRIA, --, Australia | |
Complainant Representative: K&L Gates
Jonathan A Feder of Melbourne, --, Australia
|
Respondent: 罗元凡 罗元凡 罗元凡 of 阿勒泰地区, 新疆, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited | |
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. | |
Alan L. Limbury, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: December 10, 2017 | |
Commencement: December 11, 2017 | |
Default Date: December 28, 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 Ignoring the gTLD ".vip", which is inconsequential as regards this element, the domain name is identical to Complainant's word mark SEAFOLLY, registered in Australia on November 17, 2005, No.1086227 and internationally on May 17, 2006, No. 896290. The mark is also registered with the Trademark Clearing House and is in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant's assertions that Respondent is not known by the domain name, is not authorised to register or use the domain name and has no rights or legitimate interest in that name establish a prima facie case of lack of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name on the part of Respondent, who has failed to rebut that conclusion.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant In light of the international reputation of Complainant's distinctive SEAFOLLY mark, Respondent must have known of Complainant’s SEAFOLLY mark when registering the domain name did so in bad faith. There is no conceivable good faith use to which the domain name may be put by anyone other than Complainant, hence Respondent’s passive use of the domain name constitutes use of the domain name in bad faith. 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:
|
Alan L. Limbury Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page