Psg-store-online.com

The timeline behind psg-store-online.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 Paris Saint-Germain Football v. Tolsky Jerick Case No. D2025-3742 1. The Parties The Complainant is Paris Saint-Germain Football, France, represented by Plasseraud IP, France. The Respondent is Tolsky Jerick, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <psg-store-online.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 15, 2025. On September 16, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 16, 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. The Center verified that the 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 September 25, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 16, 2025. The Center appointed Philippe Gilliéron as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 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 Paris Saint-Germain Football, also known by its acronym PSG, is a famous French soccer club established in 1970 and based in Paris. The Complainant enjoys a considerable reputation in the area of professional soccer, not only in France but also among soccer fans from all over the world. The official Facebook page of the Complainant has more than 46 million “likes” and 52 million followers, while its official X account has more than 15,1 million followers and its official Instagram account has more than 63 million followers. The Complainant notably won 10 of the last 12 editions of the French “Ligue 1” championship and has been present in every UEFA Champion’s League since 2013, notably reaching the final of the competition in 2020 and winning it in 2025. The Complainant is also one of the most prominent soccer clubs in Europe, ranking 6th on the UEFA rankings for club competitions. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks on a worldwide basis consisting of the acronym PSG, such as: - French Trademark Registration No. 3647436, registered on October 2, 2009; - United States Trademark Registration No. 4980562, registered on June 21, 2016; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 017885851, registered on August 29, 2018; - International Trademark Registration No. 1463345, registered on September 10, 2018. The Complainant has also an online presence, notably through its official website available via the <psg.fr> domain name, which is fully available in English at the address “www.psg.fr/en”. This website also hosts the Complainant’s official online shop at “www.store.psg.fr”. In November 2024, the website enjoyed a total of 1.5 million visits, with 328,100 for the store only. On June 4, 2025, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which is portrayed as the Complainant’s “official online store” and which prominently displays the Complainant’s logo purportedly offering for sale various products related to the Complainant at heavily discounted prices. 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 the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it entirely incorporates the PSG trademark and that the addition of descriptive terms such as “store” and “online” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark. The Complainant then affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it has never given its consent for the Respondent to use its trademarks and that the Respondent is obviously not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The use made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name is not a bona fide use in connection with goods or services. The Complainant finally is of the view that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In light of the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and the use made of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s trademark when he registered the disputed domain name. The use made of the disputed domain name, which relates to a website that deceptively passes itself as the official online store of the Complainant, amounts to a use in bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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.” Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical 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; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced 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 “store” and “online” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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 page 4 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here the sale of possibly counterfeit goods and impersonation of/passing off as the Complainant can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s trademark when he registered the disputed domain name as the Complainant’s trademark enjoys a worldwide reputation which has already been acknowledged by several panels (Paris Saint-Germain Football v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Alex Temple, WIPO Case No. D2019-3150; Paris Saint- Germain Football v. Daniel Macias Barajas, International Camps Network, WIPO Case No. D2021-0019; Paris Saint-Germain Football v. Pascal Lussiana, WIPO Case No. D2021-1597; Paris Saint-Germain Football v. Libasto HANGBE, WIPO Case No. D2022-4652). As such, the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The use of the disputed domain name for a website displaying the Complainant’s logo, claiming to be the official online store, and purportedly offering for sale various products related to the Complainant at heavily discounted prices not only shows the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks but also demonstrates his intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here the sale of possibly counterfeit goods and impersonation of/passing off as the Complainant, as in the present case, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under 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 <psg-store-online.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Philippe Gilliéron/ Philippe Gilliéron Sole Panelist Date: November 5, 2025

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