Imperialfashion-eu.shop

The timeline behind imperialfashion-eu.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 Imperial S.p.A. v. 任伟 (ren wei / renwei) Case No. D2025-4546 1. The Parties The Complainant is Imperial S.p.A., Italy, represented by Bugnion S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is 任伟 (ren wei / renwei), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <imperialfashion-eu.shop> is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2025. On November 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 5, 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 (RESPONDENT REDACTED) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 10, 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 amendment to the Complaint in English on November 11, 2025. On November 10, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On November 11, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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”). Page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 12, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 3, 2025. The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on December 12, 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, an Italian joint stock company established on October 22, 1978, is engaged in the production, promotion, and distribution of fashion articles and accessories. The Complainant’s products are distributed in over 40 countries worldwide including all member countries of the European Union (“EU”) and the United States of America. In 2024, sales of IMPERIAL-branded products in the EU alone, through wholesale, retail and online channels, reached over EUR 73,500,000. The brand’s official Instagram account (@imperialfashion) currently counts approximately 430,000 followers, while its Facebook page (Imperial Fashion Official) exceeds 550,000 followers. The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for IMPERIAL and IMPERIAL FASHION in various jurisdictions worldwide, including the following: - EU Registration No. 000256347 for the word mark IMPERIAL in Classes 24 and 25, registered on March 22, 2000; - EU Registration No. 004909925 for the word mark IMPERIAL in Class 35, registered on January 26, 2007; and - EU Registration No. 010230241 for the word mark IMPERIAL FASHION in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 25, and 35, registered on January 11, 2012. The Complainant also owns numerous domain names containing the IMPERIAL FASHION trade mark, including <imperialfashion.com> where it operates its official website, such as: - <imperialfashion.eu> - <imperialfashion.cn> - <imperialfashion.co> - <imperialfashion.shop> - <imperialfashion.store> - <imperialfashionstore.com> - <imperialfashion.online> The disputed domain name was registered on September 14, 2025, long after the Complainant has used and registered its trade marks IMPERIAL and IMPERIAL FASHION. The disputed domain name r esolves to a holding website with no contents except the words “This store is under construction.” 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. Page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that its IMPERIAL and IMPERIAL FASHION trade marks have acquired a high level of reputation and renown both in Italy and in several EU countries, as a result of substantial sales and continuous investments in advertising and promotion. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the disputed domain name exclusively contains English terms, namely “imperial”, “fashion”, “eu” and “shop”. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issue - Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order for the disputed domain name to be transferred: (i) the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Page 4 The entirety of the IMPERIAL FASHION trade mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The addition of the hyphen symbol “-” and country code “eu” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trade mark for the purposes of the Policy. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” is a standard registration requirement and does not impact on the analysis of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 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. The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is not in any way affiliated with the Complainant or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the IMPERIAL or IMPERIAL FASHION trade mark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the IMPERIAL or IMPERIAL FASHION trade mark. The Respondent appears to be an individual by the name of “ 任伟 (ren wei / renwei)”. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Imperial” or has any rights in the term “Imperial” or “Imperial Fashion”. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a holding website and is passively held. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a holding website with no contents except the words “This store is under construction”. By registering the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark, the Respondent has attempted to mimic the Complainant’s domain name <imperialfashion.eu>. Page 5 Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel notes the reputation and online presence of the Complainant’s IMPERIAL and IMPERIAL FASHION trade marks as well as the composition of the disputed domain name, and accepts that the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name cannot have been accidental. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent’s registration data appear to be incorrect and incomplete, for example, the contact details provided do not correspond to any verifiable address. 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 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 <imperialfashion-eu.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Sok Ling MOI/ Sok Ling MOI Sole Panelist Date: January 3, 2026

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