Parkshoppingsaocaetano.com, Shoppinganaliafranco.com, Shoppingvilaolimpia.com

The timeline behind parkshoppingsaocaetano.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.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Multiplan Empreendimentos Imobiliários S.A. v. Vladimir Ivanov Case No. D2023-3764 1. The Parties The Complainant is Multiplan Empreendimentos Imobiliários S.A., Brazil, represented by Ouro Preto Advogados, Brazil. The Respondent is Vladimir Ivanov, Serbia. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <parkshoppingsaocaetano.com>, <shoppinganaliaf ranco.com>, and <shoppingvilaolimpia.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 8, 2023. On September 11, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm 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 f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 13, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was October 3, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on October 4, 2023. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on October 6, 2023. The Panel f inds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is one of the largest companies in Brazil’s shopping center industry with more than 6,000 stores and around 190 million visits a year. The Complainant has registered trademarks for SHOPPING VILA OLÍMPIA (Brazilian Trademark registration number 900263431, registered on July 22, 2014), PARKSHOPPINGSÃOCAETANO (Brazilian Trademark registration number 830413847, registered on August 27, 2019) and SHOPPINGANÁLIAFRANCO ( Brazilian Trademark registration number 825728061, registered on July 3, 2007). The Complainant also has registered domain names, such as <shoppingvilaolimpia.com.br>, <parkshoppingsaocaetano.com.br>, and <shoppinganaliaf ranco.com.br>. The Domain Names were registered on October 1, 2022. At the time of draf ting the Decision, the Domain Names resolved to registrar parking page with pay-per-click links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations and argues that the Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks and are both identical and conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. The Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant argues, but has not documented, that the Respondent has used the Domain Names f or websites with pornographic content. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered or acquired the Domain Names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting them to them for a disproportionate amount of money, and documents of f ers f or sale f or the Domain Names. Theref ore, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad f aith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The test f or confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightf orward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademarks SHOPPING VILA OLÍMPIA, PARKSHOPPINGSÃOCAETANO, and SHOPPINGANÁLIAFRANCO. The Domain Names incorporate the Complainant’s trademarks, with small alterations on the Portuguese letters as to the letters “Í” and “Ô. The alterations do not prevent a finding of conf using similarity. See Id. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. page 3 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the respondent may demonstrate rights o r legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring inf ormation that is of ten 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. If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing, and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Complainant has contended that the Domain Names previously resolved to pornographic content, but f ailed to provide corroborating evidence due to the nature of such content. While Panels will not typically rely on unsubstantiated conclusory allegations, the Panel notes that the case f ile provides the Panel with suf ficient information to reach a conclusion. For instance, the Respondent is not af f iliated or related to the Complainant. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Names as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of , or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or a name corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide of fering of goods or services. Further, given the nearly identical nature of the Domain Names as compared to the Complainant’s trademark, such composition carries a risk of implied aff iliation that renders any f air use implausible under the circumstances of this proceeding. Lastly, given the current use, the Panel notes that previous UDRP p anels have f ound that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising pay-per-click links does not represent a bona fide of f ering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.9. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Names is evidence of bad f aith, see below. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that f or 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 f aith. The composition and use of the Domain Names make it clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its prior rights when the Respondent registered the Domain Names. The Respondent has f ailed to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-f aith use of the Domain Names. The Respondent appears to have provided fake or incomplete contact data, seeing as the courier was unable to deliver the Center’s written communication to the details disclosed by the Registrar f or the Respondent, which reinf orces an inf erence of bad f aith. Regardless of the use, be it the unsupported allegation of pornographic content or the current pay-per-click links, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Names is evidence of bad f aith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The third element of the Policy has been established. page 4 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the Domain Names <parkshoppingsaocaetano.com>, <shoppinganaliaf ranco.com>, and <shoppingvilaolimpia.com> to be cancelled. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: October 13, 2023

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