URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


SEAFOLLY IP CO. PTY LTD v. et al.
Claim Number: FA2107001956532


DOMAIN NAME

<seafolly.shop>


PARTIES


   Complainant: SEAFOLLY IP CO. PTY LTD SEAFOLLY IP CO. PTY LTD of ALEXANDRIA NSW, --, Australia
  
Complainant Representative: K&L Gates Jonathan Ariel Feder of Melbourne VIC, Australia

   Respondent: Wang Ming Jun of jia xing shi, zhe jiang, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.
   Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd.

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.
   Vali Sakellarides, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 26, 2021
   Commencement: July 27, 2021
   Default Date: August 11, 2021
   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: Complainant, Seafolly Pty Ltd is an Australian company, designer, manufacturer, wholesaler and retailer of swimwear and related accessories by reference to the "Seafolly" brand, selling its garments throughout the world and in about 550 multi-brand stores in Australia, in concept stores and in 1,750 retail outlets around the world including department stores (such as Selfridges and Nordstrom). Complainant owns the domain names seafolly.com and seafolly.com.au and is the registered owner of the SEAFOLLY trade marks around the world, including Australian trade mark no. 1086227 and International registration No. 896290 in classes 9, 18, 24, 25 and 35 designating China amongst other countries (Trade Mark). Complainant provided proof of use of the mark, copy of International Registration and Clearinghouse, as well as copy of the Respondent's website.

  

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:
  (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 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


[URS 1.2.6.3] 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 


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. seafolly.shop

 

Vali Sakellarides
Examiner
Dated: August 13, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page