Ororoweardeutschland.com + 3 more domains

The timeline behind ororoweardeutschland.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Langis LLC v. Janina Christine / katrin uwe / Wurfel Eichelberger / Eichelberger Wurfel / Pfeffer Wulf / Wulf Pfeffer Claim Number: FA2502002141247 PARTIES Complainant is Langis LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Meng Zhong of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Nevada, USA. Respondent is Janina Christine / katrin uwe / Wurfel Eichelberger / Eichelberger Wurfel / Pfeffer Wulf / Wulf Pfeffer ("Respondent"), Germany. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com>, and <ororoschweiz.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 20, 2025. Forum received payment on February 20, 2025. On February 22, 2025 and February 24, 2025, Dynadot Inc; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com>, and <ororoschweiz.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc; CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; and Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ororoweardeutschland.com, postmaster@ororoireland.com, postmaster@ororowearespana.com, and postmaster@ororoschweiz.com. Also on February 27, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 20, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder". Paragraph 1(d) of Forum's Supplemental Rules defines "The Holder of a Domain Name Registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement" and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i). Complainant has shown that the <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com> and <ororoschweiz.com> domain names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Hence this decision refers to Janina Christine / katrin uwe / Wurfel Eichelberger / Eichelberger Wurfel / Pfeffer Wulf / Wulf Pfeffer as "Respondent". PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Since 2015 Complainant, Langis LLC, has continuously used its ORORO and ORORO-formative marks in commerce in connection with heated apparel and outdoor accessories. The disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to the ORORO marks. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names, which Respondent uses to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent's websites falsely purport to sell Complainant's goods, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent is not commonly known as the domain names and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its ORORO marks. Respondent has registered and used the domain names in bad faith. Due to the recognition, reputation, and goodwill of Complainant's widely-publicized ORORO marks and trademark registrations for the ORORO marks throughout the world, Respondent must have had actual knowledge of Complainant's ORORO marks, which is evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Additionally, Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) also applies to Respondent as evidence of bad faith. It is settled law that the registration of a confusingly similar domain name that is obviously connected with a particular trademark owner by someone with no connection to the trademark owner supports a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has shown that it has rights in the ORORO mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 5,035,916 registered on September 6, 2016 for "electrically heated clothing not for protective or safety purposes, namely, electrically heated jackets, vests, trousers, pants, socks, gloves, and neck warmers"). 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. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7. The Panel finds each of Respondent's <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com> and <ororoschweiz.com> domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's ORORO mark, only differing by the addition of the words "wear deutschland", "ireland", "wear espana" or "schweiz" which are insufficient to distinguish the domain names from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e. (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or names corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain names, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com> and <ororoschweiz.com> domain names were all registered on October 19, 2024, many years after Complainant registered its ORORO mark in the United States. They resolve to virtually identical websites prominently displaying Complainant's ORORO word and logo marks and offering for sale what purport to be Complainant's heated clothing. These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com> and <ororoschweiz.com> domain names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including: (iii) Respondent has registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain names, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's ORORO mark when Respondent registered the <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com> and <ororoschweiz.com> domain names and that Respondent did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Further, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of Respondent's websites and of the goods promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ororoweardeutschland.com>, <ororoireland.com>, <ororowearespana.com> and <ororoschweiz.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: March 20, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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