The Complainant is a recognized Netherlands Antillean company, worldwide known surf, ski and casual brand that has been designing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling quality apparels, accessories, and performance wear goods since 1952.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the exclusive owner of the O'NEILL's Trademarks registered throughout the world notably for clothing and accessories.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns numerous physical stores arounds the world, and the following domain names <oneill.com>, <eu.oneill.com>, <us.oneill.com>, <au.oneill.com> from which customers can purchase its products (through its licensees).<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <oneillshops.com<\/strong>> was registered on May 18, 2022<\/strong> and resolves to an online store based on Complainant's Trademarks O'NEILL. <\/p>\n By the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name and the website are active. <\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " Complainant <\/strong><\/p>\n Complainant Contentions: <\/p>\n 1. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name comprises (a) an exact reproduction of the O'NEILL trademark; (b) a non-distinctive additional element: \"shops\" and (c) a top-level domain suffixes such as \".com\". The most prominent and distinctive part of the disputed domain name is the word \"O'NEILL\" which is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark. Furthermore, that the addition of descriptive and non-distinctive terms such as \"outlet\", \"online\/s\", \"news\", \"shoes\", \"shop\", \"sale\" do not provide additional specification or sufficient distinction from the Complainant or its O'NEILL trademarks; that in contrary the addition of such descriptive and non-distinctive terms has the effect of the confusing similarities and inducing Internet Users to believe that there is an association between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. In addition, the Complainant underlines that the considerable reputation of the trademark; the distinctive character of its O´NEILL´s trademarks and the dominant component of the disputed domain name, make undoubtful that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to O´NEILL trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.<\/p>\n 2. That the Respondent knew of the Complainant´s Trademarks at the time of registering the disputed domain name as such trademarks are well-known throughout the world and subject of a large number of trademark registrations. <\/p>\n 3. That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests over the disputed domain name, due to there is no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the O´NEILL´s Trademarks. Furthermore, there is no evidence that “oneillshops” is the name of the Respondent´s corporate entity or a fair use of the Complainant´s Trademark. Neither, that the Respondent is using, or plans to use, the O´NEILL Trademarks or WAVE logo trademark or the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name resolves to a website on which the Respondent has made unauthorized use of the O´NEILL´s Trademarks.<\/p>\n 4. That the disputed domain name leads to clone of the Complainant website where the Complainant´s Trademark and logo are reproduced. The website offers what appear to be genuine O´NEILL branded products but are counterfeited goods. The website is likely to trick consumers into erroneously believing that the Complainant is somehow affiliated with the Respondent or endorses its commercial activities, when in fact, no such relationship exists.<\/p>\n 5. That the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet Users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with O´NEILL´s Trademarks; that, the sole purpose of the inclusion of the O´NEILL Trademarks in the disputed domain name is to attract Internet Users in order to generate revenue and take unfair advantage from the O´NEILL´s Trademarks reputation.<\/p>\n 6. That on June 27, 2022, the Complainant sent a Cease and Desist Letter to the Respondent, through the concerned Registrar, which remained unanswered. Response<\/strong> <\/p>\n The Respondent did not reply to any of the Complainant´s contentions. <\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"María Alejandra López García"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2022-11-08 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is a recognized Netherlands Antillean company, worldwide known surf, ski and casual brand that has been designing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling quality apparels, accessories, and performance wear goods since 1952.<\/p>\n The Complainant owns the following Trademarks: <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n\n