Paraboots.shop, Parabootssvip.shop, Parabootsvip.shop

The timeline behind paraboots.shop

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Etablissements Richard Pontvert et Cie. v. Antevocxcvcdvsffbnio Philccxfcvbcrigvfcfbkfb, cxexxkocxcvcdvsffbnio xsixlcczzxjcdfcvbcrigvfcfbkfb, vxxkocxcvcdvsffbnio vczzxjcdfcvbcrigvfcfbkfb Case No. D2025-3845 1. The Parties The Complainant is Etablissements Richard Pontvert et Cie., France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France. The Respondents are Antevocxcvcdvsffbnio Philccxfcvbcrigvfcfbkfb, United States of America (“United States”) cxexxkocxcvcdvsffbnio xsixlcczzxjcdfcvbcrigvfcfbkfb, United States, and vxxkocxcvcdvsffbnio vczzxjcdfcvbcrigvfcfbkfb, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <paraboots.shop>, <parabootssvip.shop> and <parabootsvip.shop> are registered with West263 International Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 22, 2025. On September 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 24, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown third party) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 25, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 30, 2025. page 2 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 Respondents 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 Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on October 23, 2025. The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 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 is a French established company, known for its quality shoes and its models commercialized under the trademark PARABOOT (Annexes 1 and 8 to the Complaint). It owns trademark registrations containing the mark PARABOOT in various jurisdictions, inter alia: - French trademark registration for , Reg. No. 4135107, registered November 19, 2014; - European Union trademark registration PARABOOT (word), Reg. No. 001434307, registered February 12, 2001; - United Kingdom trademark registration for , Reg. No. UK00801249091, registered April 6, 2016; and - International registration for , Reg. No. 1249091, registered March 17, 2015, designated for various jurisdictions around the world (Annexes 7 and 9 to the Complaint). Further, the Complainant provides its main business website under the domain name <paraboot.com>, registered December 25, 1999, where it offers especially shoes for sale (Annex 10 to the Complaint). The disputed domain names were registered on July 6, 2025 <paraboots.shop>, on July 27, 2025 <parabootsvip.shop> and on July 30, 2025 <parabootssvip.shop> (Annexes 2 and 3 to the Complaint). At the time of filing the Complaint the disputed domain names referred to websites offering shoes for sale with significant discounts and displaying the Complainant’s trademark (Annex 4 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asks for consolidating the different disputed domain names’ registrants in a single proceeding since there are a set of indicators that suggest that the disputed domain names were registered by the same entity. Further, the Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names: Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the distinctive PARABOOT mark in which the Complainant has rights. The only differences to the PARABOOT mark are the adding of the letter “s” or the terms “svip” and “ssvip” to the Complainant’s mark. page 3 The disputed domain names reproduce in its entirety the Complainant’s mark PARABOOT and this mark is immediately recognizable since the addition of the letter “s” or the terms “svip” and “ssvip” cannot prevent the finding of confusing similarity towards the Complainant’s PARABOOT mark. Furthermore, the Complainant notes that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondents are not linked to the Complainant in any way whatsoever and have never been authorized by the Complainant to register domain names that are similar to its trademark. The Respondents are moreover not commonly known by or associated with the disputed domain names and do not use them for any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith by the Respondents. The disputed domain names were registered years after the Complainant has established rights in the mark PARABOOT and this mark is distinctive and well known; hence, the Respondents must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the mark PARABOOT when registering the disputed domain names. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names resolve to identical websites where shoes were offered for sale with high discounts and displayed the Complainant’s logo, which can only be explained as an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to these websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondents’ website. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. As regards same identity or common control, the Panel notes that: - the disputed domain names were registered within one month by using the same registrar; - the registrant details appear to be fantasy details that are very similar in structure; - the disputed domain names have a very similar naming pattern, “paraboot” plus “s”, “svip” or “ssvip” and identical generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) “.shop”; - the disputed domain names resolve to identical or at least very similar websites, offering shoes with high discounts and displaying the Complainant’s Logo ; and - the Respondents did not react in any way – the Respondents neither rejected the consolidation request nor filed any Response. page 4 Because of these commonalities this Panel is convinced that the disputed domain names were registered by the same domain name holder or they are at least under common control. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 7. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 3.0, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of the mark PARABOOT for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. In the present case, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the PARABOOT mark in which the Complainant has rights since they incorporate the entirety of the mark PARABOOT and only add the letter “s” or the terms “svip” and “ssvip”. It has long been established under UDRP decisions that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names, the mere addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. This is the case at present – the PARABOOT trademark clearly remains recognizable in each of the disputed domain names. Finally, it has also long been held that gTLDs (in this case “.shop”) are generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity of a disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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. 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 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. 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. page 5 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 disputed domain names, since it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the PARABOOT mark in any manner. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names or have presented any evidence showing rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain names, comprising the Complainant’s mark PARABOOT and adding the letter “s” or the terms “svip” and “ssvip” together with the TLD “.shop”, coupled with the (prior) use of the disputed domain names to address websites purportedly offering for sale the Complainant’s products, is likely to mislead Internet users and cannot be considered fair use – the opposite is the case: such conduct does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. Finally, the evidence in the Complaint does not reveal any disclaimer that discloses the Respondent’s relationship, or lack thereof, with the Complainant, and the Respondent has not introduced any evidence to the contrary. Rather, it appears the Respondent has purposely attempted to create a false association with the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent moreover clearly does not comply with the Oki Data test to show a legitimate use of a trademark as a reseller, distributor, or service provider. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8; Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The Respondent did not file a response and hence has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that: - the disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and - the disputed domain names are being used by the Respondent in bad faith. (i) The Complainant has established rights in the mark PARABOOT years before the registration of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Complainant is using the mark PARABOOT as its primary domain name <paraboot.com>, to host its business website and offer its products (mainly shoes). Because of the reputation of the PARABOOT mark, it is inconceivable for this Panel that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trademark by an unaffiliated entity (as it is in the present case) can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Finally, a simple online search for “paraboot” would have shown the Complainant and its marks. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.3. Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith by the Respondent. (ii) The Complainant has put forward evidence that the disputed domain names were used by the Respondent prior to filing of the Complaint to resolve to websites showing the Complainant’s logo and offering shoes for sale at a significant discount. page 6 This clearly disrupts the Complainant’s business and shows that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, which constitutes bad faith use. The evidence and documents produced and put forward by the Complainant together with the fact that the Respondent has failed to file a Response and therefore failed to present any evidence of any good faith registration and use with regard to the disputed domain names further prove that the disputed domain names were registered and are used by the Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Based on the available record, 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 names <paraboots.shop>, <parabootssvip.shop> and <parabootsvip.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Peter Burgstaller/ Peter Burgstaller Sole Panelist Date: November 13, 2025

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