Marketing-bulgari.com

The timeline behind marketing-bulgari.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 Bulgari S.p.A v. Felix White Case No. D2025-4290 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bulgari S.p.A, Italy, represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom. The Respondent is Felix White, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <marketing-bulgari.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 20, 2025. On October 21, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 21, 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 (Domain Administrator) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 22, 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 October 22, 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 October 27, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 16, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 18, 2025. The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 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 an Italian company founded in 1884 doing business worldwide in the luxury goods and hotel markets. The Complainant holds a portfolio of trademarks for BULGARI or BVLGARI in different jurisdictions. By way of example, for BULGARI, International Registration No. 452694 registered on May 15, 1980, or for BVLGARI, International Registration No. 494237 registered on July 5, 1985. The Complainant’s trademark is to be considered well-known for UDRP purposes. The Complainant has a strong presence on the Internet through its official site “www.bulgari.com”, which domain name was registered on February 17, 1998, as well on the social media with millions of followers. The disputed domain name was registered on March 9, 2025, and resolves to a webpage titled: “The content of the page cannot be displayed”. The Complainant sent a cease and desisted letter on June 17, 2025, via the Privacy Service of the Respondent who did not answer. 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 its trademarks are reproduced in its entirety and, none of the circumstances reproduced in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies in this case. The Complainant also asserts that the registration of a famous trademark tantamount to bad faith as stated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.1.4. Regarding the use, the Complainant contends that the passive doctrine applies in this case to support a finding of bad faith use. Further, the activation of the Mail Exchange (“MX”) records and the lack of response to the cease and desist letter, strengthen this conclusion. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 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. 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 term here, “marketing” or a hyphen 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 none of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy can be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Indeed, the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant ́s BULGARI trademark while the Respondent is not affiliated or authorized somehow to use it in a corresponding domain name. Under these circumstances the Panel cannot imagine any legitimate use by the Respondent especially considering the composition of the disputed domain name suggesting affiliation with the Complainant and the Respondent’s default. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used 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. page 4 Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel also finds that the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant and its trademarks due to its reputation and distinctiveness when registering the disputed domain name. This previous knowledge strengthens the conclusion that the registration was in bad faith. Arguably the lack of credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith use and registration. 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 <marketing-bulgari.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Manuel Moreno-Torres/ Manuel Moreno-Torres Sole Panelist Date: December 8, 2025

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