Byredo.click, Eu-byredo.store

The timeline behind byredo.click

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 Byredo AB v. Blanrwerdi Buliy, OhoadsSE and sgtrfsegwreg dfgvdgtedfhgd Case No. D2025-4722 1. The Parties The Complainant is Byredo AB, Sweden, represented by Zacco Sweden AB, Sweden. The Respondents are Blanrwerdi Buliy, OhoadsSE, United States of America (“United States”), and sgtrfsegwreg dfgvdgtedfhgd, Andorra. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain name <byredo.click> is registered with Sav.com, LLC. The disputed domain name <eu- byredo.store> is registered with West263 International Limited (collectively, the “Registrars” ). The disputed domain names are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Domain Names”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2025. On November 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On November 15, November 16 and November 20, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses, disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondents (Redacted for Privacy and Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 20, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file a separate complaint for the Domain Name associated with a different underlying registrant 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 21, 2025. 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 25, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 15, 2025. The Respondent Blanrwerdi Buliy, OhoadsSE sent several email communications to the Center on December 5, 19 and 23, 2025. On December 29, 2025, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed to panel appointment. The Center appointed Gregor Vos as the sole panelist in this matter on January 13, 2026. 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 company operating the European brand BYREDO, founded in Stockholm in 2006. Luxury products offered under this brand include fragrances, makeup, home goods, leather goods and accessories. These products are sold in more than 40 countries worldwide. The Complainant is part of the company group Antonio Puig S.A., which also operates brands such as Christian Louboutin, Paco Rabanne, Carolina Herrera and Jean Paul Gaultier. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia the following trademark registrations (hereinafter referred to as: the “Trademarks”): - European Union trademark registration No. 006183776 for BYREDO (word), registered on July 11, 2008; - International Trademark Registration with designation of inter alia China, Japan, the United States and No. 966951 for BYREDO, registered on February 8, 2008; - International Trademark Registration with designation of inter alia China, Japan, the United States, No. 1276683 for , registered on June 8, 2015; and - European Union trademark registration No. 014196844 for (figurative), registered on May 25, 2017. The Complainant is the owner of inter alia the domain names <byredo.com> and <byredo.eu>. The Domain Name <byredo.click> was registered on November 10, 2025. The Domain Name <eu-byredo.store> was registered on November 5, 2025. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Domain Names resolved to identical websites that displayed prominently the Complainant’s figurative Trademarks and offered for sale the Complainant’s products, using its product images. The Domain Names continue to resolve to such websites at the time of this Decision. On November 10, 2025, the Complainant issued an infringement notice requesting the cessation of all unauthorized use of the Complainant’s Trademarks and the takedown of the website at the Domain Name <eu-byredo.store>. The Respondents did not reply to this notice. 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 Domain Names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Domain Names are identical and confusingly similar to the Trademarks of the Complainant, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. page 3 Firstly, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name <byredo.click> is identical to its Trademarks and that the Domain Name <eu-byredo.store> is confusingly similar to its Trademarks. The Domain Names incorporate the Trademarks in their entirety. The generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs) “.click” and “.store” are irrelevant when determining the confusing similarity between the Trademarks and the Domain Names. The Domain Name <eu-byredo.store> contains the mere addition of the prefix “eu”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Secondly, the Complainant asserts that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Complainant has not granted the Respondents any authorization or license to use the Trademarks in the Domain Names. Moreover, the Respondents have not demonstrated any bona fide use of the Domain Names. On the contrary, the Domain Names imitate the Complainant’s official website by reproducing color scheme, logotype, and product images from the Complainant’s website. The Respondents use the Complainant’s product images and offer products at steep discounts, leading the Complainant to presume that the products offered for sale are counterfeits or otherwise illegally obtained. According to the Complainant, such use can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondents. Finally, according to the Complainant, the Respondents have registered and are using the Domain Names in bad faith. The Trademarks predate the Domain Names by many years. Given the content of the websites to which the Domain Names resolve, the Complainant contends that the Respondents must have been aware of the Complainant and its business at the time of registration. The Complainant further argues that the Respondents’ purpose in registering and using the Domain Names is to create the false impression that the Domain Names are affiliated with or operated by the Complainant, for either commercial, illicit or fraudulent activities. In addition, the Respondents’ failure to respond to the infringement notice further supports the finding of bad faith. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply substantively to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent Blanrwerdi Buliy, OhoadsSE sent several non-substantive email communications on December 5, December 19 and December 23, 2025, containing offensive language. 6. Discussion and Findings For the Complainant to succeed, it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and on the balance of probabilities that: i. the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and ii. the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and iii. the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Only if all three elements have been fulfilled, the Panel is able to grant the remedies requested by the Complainant. The Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different Domain Name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the 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 disputes against the multiple Domain Name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Domain Name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. page 4 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 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. The Complainant argues that (i) the Domain Names are registered within a very short period of time, (ii) the Domain Names incorporate the same registered Trademark, (iii) the Domain Names resolve to identical websites, (iv) the identical websites are both hosted through the same hosting provider; and (v) the Domain Names both use masked WhoIs details. In the present case, having considered the Complainant’s arguments, the Panel finds that common control is sufficiently established and notes that the Respondents did not rebut the Complainant’s assertions in this regard. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are subject to 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 Domain Name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 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 Trademarks and the Domain Names. 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 Trademarks is reproduced within the Domain Names. Accordingly, the Domain Name <byredo.click> is identical, and the Domain Name <eu-byredo.store> is confusingly similar, to the Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Domain Name <byredo.click> contains the Trademarks in their entirety with the gTLD “.click”. The Domain Name <eu-byredo.store> contains the addition of the geographical indication for the European Union “eu”, a hyphen and the gTLD “.store”. Although the addition of other terms 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 Domain Name and the Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Furthermore, the addition of gTLDs “.click” and “.store” to the Domain Names is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such disregarded under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.0, 1.11.1. 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 page 5 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 Domain Names. 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 Domain Names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In this case, the composition of the Domain Names carries a risk of implied affiliation. The Domain Names fully incorporate the Trademarks (one being identical thereto) and resolve to websites that display prominently the Complainant’s figurative Trademarks and offer for sale the Complainant’s products, without disclosing their lack of relationship with the Complainant. This creates the false impression that they are affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Complainant. The Panel finds that such use does not confer rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. 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 registration of the Trademarks predates the registration of the Domain Names. Considering that the Domain Names incorporate the Trademarks in their entirety – one being identical thereto and with the mere addition of “eu” and a hyphen in the Domain Name <eu- byredo.store> - and the use to which they have been put, including use the Complainant’s (figurative) Trademarks, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that it is not conceivable that the Respondent chose the Domain Names without knowledge of the Complainant, its activities, and the Trademarks under which the Complainant is doing business. The Panel has found that the Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, and the Panel finds from the present circumstances that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites on which commercial content was displayed, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademarks. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 6 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 Domain Names <byredo.click> and <eu-byredo.store> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gregor Vos/ Gregor Vos Sole Panelist Date: January 27, 2026

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