Valeosafe.shop

The timeline behind valeosafe.shop

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 Valeo v. userdc dger Case No. D2025-3689 1. The Parties The Complainant is Valeo, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France. The Respondent is userdc dger, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <valeosafe.shop> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2025. On September 11, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 12, 2025, 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. On September 22, 2025, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint further to the Center’s request to rectify certain information in the Complaint. 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 October 1, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 21, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 24, 2025. The Center appointed Kateryna Oliinyk as the sole panelist in this matter on November 4, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a European automotive technology company headquartered in Paris, France, and registered in the French commercial register since 1955. The Complainant operates globally as a supplier and partner to automakers, focusing on innovative solutions for smart mobility, intuitive driving, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Complainant also provides and distributes spare parts for both automakers and the independent aftermarket. The Complainant holds the registered trademark rights for the VALEO trademark, based, inter alia, on the following trademark registrations: - French Trademark Registration No. 1576649 for VALEO, registered on August 3, 1990, for goods in International Classes 1, 7, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28; - International Trademark Registration No. 870058 for VALEO and device, registered on February 28, 2005, for goods in International Classes 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12; - United States Trademark Registration No. 1353733 for VALEO, registered on August 13, 1985, for goods in International Classes 9, 11, and 12; and - European Union Trademark Registration No. 018363184 for VALEO, registered on August 16, 2023, for goods and services in International Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, and 44. The Complainant also operates official websites under domain names <valeo.com> registered on March 25, 1997, and <valeo.us> registered on April 24, 2002. The disputed domain name was registered on July 5, 2025 and resolves to a multi-brand e-commerce store displaying the Complainant’s VALEO trademark and offering products related to the automotive industry, including products bearing the Complainant’s trademark in the product description. 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. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that it owns rights in the VALEO trademark. The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name entirely incorporates the VALEO trademark, which is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, despite the additional generic / laudatory word “safe”, which is not sufficient to avoid any confusion between the disputed domain name and the VALEO trademark, company name and domain names of the Complainant. Addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) shall be viewed as a mere registration requirement. No Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form. There is no evidence demonstrating that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. page 3 There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any evidence of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. Moreover, the disputed domain name and the associated website suggest confusion regarding affiliation of the disputed domain name with the Complainant. The Complainant claims that the Respondent uses the VALEO trademark in product descriptions for goods that originate from third-party manufacturers and have no connection to the Complainant. The disputed domain name’s website pretends to offer the Complainant’s products at discounted prices, creating a misleading impression. The Respondent claims ownership of VALEO products, despite not being commonly known by the name “VALEO” and lacking any authorization or license from the Complainant to use the trademark. This conduct creates a risk of implied affiliation, which does not constitute fair use because it impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent does not satisfy the conditions of the Oki Data test and raises concerns about the authenticity of the products offered under the VALEO trademark on the disputed domain name’s website, as these goods are sold at prices significantly lower than the usual market rates. If the products are not genuine, the use of the disputed domain name for illicit activity cannot establish any legitimate rights or interests. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the VALEO trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark which has gained a high degree of recognition among the public. Furthermore, the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark is clearly demonstrated by the use of the Complainant’s VALEO trademark on the commercial website under the disputed domain name. The Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and its trademark and registered the disputed domain name with such trademark in mind, in order to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant and its trademark to attract Internet users. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[a] Panel shall 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 directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: I. that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; II. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and; III. that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its decision on the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. page 4 Under paragraph 5(f) and paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint, and where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 Complainant holds a series of international and national trademark registrations for the VALEO trademark. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name consists of the VALEO trademark followed by the term “safe” and uses the “.shop” generic TLD. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, safe, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds 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 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 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes that neither license nor authorization appears to have been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s VALEO trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. page 5 The Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s VALEO trademark and the descriptor “safe” to add credibility to the website, and its use of the mark in the website’s design and product descriptions without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant (offering both Complainant’s and third-party goods competing with the Complainant’s), demonstrates clear targeting of the Complainant, its trademark, and its business. Consequently, the Respondent’s conduct cannot be regarded as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant demonstrated that the website, to which the disputed domain name resolves, offers products that compete with those of the Complainant. The website also displays the imitation of the Complainant’s VALEO logo, which shows that the Respondent has attempted to impersonate or pass off as the Complainant, since the display of the Complainant’s VALEO trademark and the overall website content mislead Internet users as to the affiliation, source or sponsorship of the services rendered by the Respondent, clearly seeking a commercial gain (see sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2., and 2.5.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). It is not necessary for this Panel to determine the authenticity of the goods sold through the website; the fact that the website operates as an e-commerce platform offering the Complainant’s products alongside competing goods, without any clear disclaimer regarding the lack of affiliation with the Complainant, is a clear indication that such use does not satisfy the Oki Data test (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). This demonstrates the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds 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. 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 3.0, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant ascertained its rights over the VALEO trademark in several jurisdictions. The dates of registration of the Complainant’s trademark significantly precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name. As mentioned in the analysis of the first element, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is used in the design of the website with no disclaimer of the lack of affiliation or endorsement of the website by the Complainant. Internet users who access the website under the disputed domain name may be misled into believing that they are dealing with the Complainant, or with the website somehow endorsed, authorized, or operated by the Complainant. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Taking the above into consideration, as well as the fact that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant, it is clear that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its trademark when the disputed domain name was registered. Section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. page 6 The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <valeosafe.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Kateryna Oliinyk/ Kateryna Oliinyk Sole Panelist Date: November 25, 2025

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