Oseamlibus.com

The timeline behind oseamlibus.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION OSEA International, LLC v. Maci Woyat, Maci Woyat Case No. D2026-2289 1. The Parties The Complainant is OSEA International, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, United States. The Respondent is Maci Woyat, Maci Woyat, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <oseamlibus.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2026. On May 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 29, 2026, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 29, 2026, 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 amended Complaint on June 3, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on June 29, 2026. 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, a Delaware limited liability corporation, is a global leader in the skincare industry. The Complainant and/or its affiliated entities commenced use of the OSEA brand in 1994, when it continuously and exclusively used the OSEA brand and trademark in conjunction with various skincare and beauty products and services. Over the last nearly thirty years, the Complainant’s products and services have garnered extensive media attention in the United States and worldwide. The Complainant also maintains a successful online presence through its website, and as a result of its efforts, the Complainant has attained considerable goodwill in the marketplace. The Complainant owns the following registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): OSEA, United States Registration No. 3,682,975, registered on September 15, 2009, with a first use anywhere and first use in commerce of June 10, 1994, in International Class 3; OSEA, United States Registration No. 7,117,490, registered on July 25, 2023, in International Class 44; and OSEA (stylized), United States Registration No. 7,625,770, registered on December 24, 2024, with a first use anywhere and first use in commerce of June 10, 1994, in International Classes 3 and 44. In addition, the Complainant has a pending application to register OSEA MALIBU, United States Serial No. 98,054,248, which was filed on June 22, 2023. Further, the Complainant also owns various registered international trademarks in a number of jurisdictions worldwide. The foregoing trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “OSEA Mark”. Consumers recognize the Complainant and the OSEA Mark as identifying the source of unique, high-quality skin care products, as being of the highest quality, and emanating exclusively from, and being sponsored and approved by, the Complainant. The Complainant also owns and operates the domain name <oseamalibu.com>, which resolves to its official website at “www.oseamalibu.com”, where the Complainant advertises and provides information about its products and services. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 31, 2026, and resolves to a website that impersonates the Complainant, passing off its website as that of the Complainant. Specifically, the Respondent’s website prominently displays the OSEA Mark and replicates the Complainant’s copyrighted photographs and content, offering skincare and beauty products purportedly made by the Complainant at significantly discounted prices. The Respondent’s website also displays several of the Complainant’s other registered trademarks and their corresponding products, such as SKINCARE FROM THE SEA, DAYGLOW FACE OIL, OCEAN EYES, and SEABIOTIC. The Respondent even lists the Complainant’s physical address as Respondent’s own address on its website. On April 23, 2026, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter via email address [...]@oseamlibus.com appeared on the Respondent’s website to the Respondent, demanding the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name, but the email was undeliverable. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: page 3 - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSEA Mark because the Disputed Domain Name contains OSEA Mark in its entirety, followed by the term “mlibus,” a misspelling of the term “malibu,”, which Complainant uses in its domain name and official website, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, among other things, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing the OSEA Mark, and the Respondent has never been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; and - the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, among other things, the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to create a copycat website featuring identical goods to those sold by the Complainant on its official website, albeit the Respondent sells the goods at significant discounts for the purpose of deceiving unsuspecting consumers, and the Respondent must have been aware of the OSEA Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the OSEA Mark as explained below. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has established rights in the OSEA Mark based on its registered trademarks for the OSEA Mark. The consensus view of panels is that “[w]here the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case”. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the OSEA Mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the OSEA Mark in its entirety, followed by the term “mlibus,” a misspelling of the term “malibu,” which Complainant uses in its domain name and official website, and is then followed by the gTLD “.com”. The test for confusing similarity involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Here, the OSEA Mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. As stated in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.1, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographic . . . or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. Thus, the addition of the term “mlibus” to the Complainant’s OSEA Mark in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See e.g., Allianz Global Investors of America, L.P. and Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) v. Bingo-Bongo, WIPO Case No. D2011-0795; and Hoffmann- page 4 La Roche Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia, WIPO Case No. D2008-0923. Further, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is a technical requirement. As such, it is well established that a gTLD may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s OSEA Mark. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. In this case, given the facts as set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its OSEA Mark. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any similar name, nor any evidence that the Respondent was using or making demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Policy, paragraph 4(c). Moreover, based on the use made of the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that impersonates the Complainant’s official website and offers the Complainant’s goods at a steep discount, which makes it likely that the goods are nonauthentic, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under the circumstances of the case. A comparison of the Complainant’s website with the Respondent’s website reveals, for example, that they both have a similar website structure, they both have the same look and feel, they both display the OSEA Mark throughout the respective websites, they both use the same graphics and images on their respective websites, and list the same physical address. Screenshots of both websites were submitted by the Complainant in Annexes to the Complaint. In sum, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. page 5 The Panel finds that based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity as here, passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy due to the Respondent’s attempt to pass off as the Complainant to allegedly offer nonauthentic goods to unwitting customers at a significant discount. The Respondent attempted to pass off as the Complainant by copying its website offering OSEA-branded products without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant, thus demonstrating bad faith. Therefore, it strains credulity to believe that the Respondent had not known of the Complainant or the OSEA Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. See Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763 (“a finding of bad faith may be made where the respondent ‘knew or should have known’ of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the domain name”). In this regard, the fact that the Respondent featured goods bearing the OSEA Mark on its website also indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its branded goods. Rather, the Panel notes that the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, together with its use, affirms the Respondent’s intention to take unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the OSEA Mark as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the resolving Disputed Domain Name. In sum, the Panel finds that the Respondent had the Complainant’s OSEA Mark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name, another example of bad faith. The use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website or online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website or online location for commercial gain demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Here, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainant. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). Moreover, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name is an attempt to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is also likely to confuse Internet users into incorrectly believing that the Respondent is authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant. This is so because the Disputed Domain Name redirects to a website that replicates the Complainant’s official OSEA website, offering products that directly compete with those of the Complainant, albeit at dramatically discounted prices. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. page 6 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 <oseamlibus.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Lynda M. Braun/ Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: July 8, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.