Finerybrand.com

The timeline behind finerybrand.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 Maesa LLC v. yuan baoquan Case No. D2025-2483 1. The Parties The Complainant is Maesa LLC, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Dorf Nelson & Zauderer LLP, U.S. The Respondent is yuan baoquan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <finerybrand.com>(the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 24, 2025. On June 24, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 26, 2025, 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 (finery® perfume, body mist, cherry perfume / Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 18, 2025, 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 July 21, 2025. 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 July 22, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 11, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 14, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Nick J. Gardner as the sole panelist in this matter on August 19, 2025. 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 describes itself as an “international beauty incubator”. It develops and launches beauty brands. One of these is called FINE’RY. The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for FINE’RY including U.S. Registration No. 7,147,298 (registered on August 22, 2023) and International Registration No. 1795788 (registered on April 24, 2024), covering cologne, fragrances for personal use, perfumes, scented body spray, and toilet water. These trademarks are referred to as the “FINE’RY trademark” in this decision. The Complainant began offering perfumes and body mists under the FINE’RY trademark exclusively through Target retail stores and via the domain name <target.com> on or around October 27, 2022. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 27, 2025. It resolves to a website (the “Respondent’s Website”) that prominently displays “finery®” branding, together with other trademarks that the Complainant has applied for registration, and offers fragrances and body mists. The website displays images of what appear to be the Complainant’s actual FINE’RY products alongside promotional content for the Respondent’s own fragrance offerings. The Respondent’s Website clearly gives the impression that it is operated by, or approved by, the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s case can be summarized as follows: a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FINE’RY trademark. b) The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. c) The Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant’s FINE’RY trademark. The Respondent’s Website masquerades as being that of the Complainant. The Complainant says the case is substantially the same as Maesa LLC v. Jia Jun, WIPO Case No. D2024-3913 (ordering transfer of <finery-perfume.com>). B. Respondent No Response has been filed. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Matters The Panel notes that no communication has been received from the Respondent. However, given the Complaint and Written Notice were sent to the relevant addresses disclosed by the Registrar, then the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it is able to proceed to determine this Complaint and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any Response. page 3 While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default (see, e.g., Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909). Substantive Matters To succeed, in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has rights in the FINE’RY trademark. The Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to this trademark. Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). It is established that, where a mark is the distinctive part of a disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is considered to be confusingly similar to the registered mark (DHL Operations B.V. v. DHL Packers, WIPO Case No. D2008-1694). In the present case the Complainant’s trademark is contained in its entirety apart from the apostrophe (‘) which cannot form part of a domain name for technical reasons. The trademark remains recognizable. It is also established that the addition of the term (such as here “brand”) to a domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253); furthermore, mere addition of a descriptive term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix, WIPO Case No. D2006-0189). It is also well established that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, does not affect the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. Accordingly the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. page 4 None of these apply in the present circumstances. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use FINE’RY trademark. The Complainant has prior rights in the FINE’RY trademark which precede the Respondent’s acquisition of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and thereby the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to produce evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455). The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish his rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the present circumstances the fact that the Disputed Domain Name is linked to the Respondent’s Website which impersonates the Complainant through the use of the Complainant’s different marks including FINE’RY and their product images lead the Panel to conclude the registration and use were in bad faith. The Panel concludes that the Respondent chose to register a name comprising the Complainant’s trademark (apart from the apostrophe ‘) combined with the descriptive word “brand” in order to facilitate a scheme where the Respondent’s website impersonates the Complainant and offers for sale competing products. Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy a non-exhaustive list of factors evidencing registration and use in bad faith comprises: (i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location. In the present circumstances the Panel agrees with the Complainant that factor (iv) applies as the Respondent is seeking to achieve commercial gain by impersonating the Complainant. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has not filed a Response and hence has not availed himself of the opportunity to present any case of good faith that he might have. The Panel infers that none exists. The Panel also agrees that this case is substantially the same as Maesa LLC v. Jia Jun, WIPO Case No. D2024-3913 (ordering transfer of <finery-perfume.com>). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. page 5 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4 of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <finerybrand.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nick J. Gardner/ Nick J. Gardner Sole Panelist Date: September 2, 2025

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