Westmore · UDRP DecisionSevenseasworldwide.online
The Panel ordered transfer of <sevenseasworldwide.online>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The domain had been used for a website reproducing the Complainant’s logo and appearing to be an official website, with the Panel finding it more likely than not that the website sought personal or proprietary customer information. The website’s subsequent unavailability did not alter the bad-faith finding.
The timeline behind sevenseasworldwide.online
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind sevenseasworldwide.online — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how exact incorporation of a distinctive mark, combined with an imitative website and unauthorized logo reproduction, can support findings under all three UDRP elements. It also shows that taking an impersonating website offline after the Complaint does not erase evidence of its earlier bad-faith use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Seven Seas Worldwide Group Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Tatang Carlson Wesong Case No. D2021-1939 1. The Parties The Complainant is Seven Seas Worldwide Group Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Briffa Solicitors, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Tatang Carlson Wesong, South Africa. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sevenseasworldwide.online> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 21, 2021. On June 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 21, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 23, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on June 23, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 25, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 21, 2021. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is part of the Seven Seas Worldwide Group, which is a worldwide shipping provider. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of a substantial number of registered trademarks across the world for the trademark SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE including but not limited to - United Kingdom trademark registration number 905944798 SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE (word) with a filing date of May 17, 2007, and a registration date of February 28, 2008, for services in class 39; and -European Union registration number 905944798 SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE (word) with a filing date of May 17, 2007, and a registration date of February 26, 2008, for services in class 39. The Complainant and its group companies has used the Complainant’s mark extensively throughout the world. The principal domain name that is used by the Complainant is <sevenseasworldwide.com>. The disputed domain was registered on December 28, 2020. At the time of filing of the Complaint the disputed domain name was used for a website which mimicked the Complainant´s website. The disputed domain name does currently not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.online” is thus descriptive of the Complainant’s services in that they are provided online, and calls to mind the Complainant’s well-known mark and suggests a further association with the Complainant. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark and to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge and belief, the Respondent (as an individual business, or other organization) has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue. The Complainant finally asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant’s mark is distinctive, and well known, and its reputation is such that the Respondent knew or should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s mark at the time when the disputed domain name was registered, and the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE, since the disputed domain name contains this mark in its entirety The gTLD” “.online” is a standard registration requirement and as such it is generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is obvious from the Complaint, that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the trademark SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE. Further, given the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted this. Furthermore, the way the Respondent is using the disputed domain name, supports a finding that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the complainant to prove both registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances, which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed 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 the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case, including the evidence on record of the long time use of the Complainant’s trademark SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE and the way the disputed domain name is used, it is obvious to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was used for a website, which, inter alia by reproducing the Complainant’s logo, clearly gave the Internet user the impression that the website was an official website of the Complainant, which is not the case. As indicated by the Complainant it seems more likely than not, that the purpose of the website was to gather personal and/or proprietary information from the Complainant’s customers by requesting information that could be used to breach the Complainant’s customer’s accounts. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website”. The fact that the websites appear to be unavailable at present does not alter this finding. Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive and reputed trademark SEVEN SEAS WORLDWIDE and the gTLD “.online”; that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions; and that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name, and considering all the facts and evidence of the case, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <sevenseasworldwide.online> be transferred to the Complainant. Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: August 13, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around sevenseasworldwide.online
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.