Oscardelarentais-us.shop

The timeline behind oscardelarentais-us.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Oscar de La Renta, LLC v. linn song Case No. D2025-4816 1. The Parties Complainant is Oscar de La Renta, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Tm ark Conseils, France. Respondent is linn song, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <oscardelarentais-us.shop> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2025. On November 20, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 20, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (IDENTITY UNDISCLOSED) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 24, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 26, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 1, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was December 21, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied Respondent’s def ault on December 26, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 Complainant is a company incorporated in the United States that has been a f ashion brand with more than 60 years of history. Complainant has operated a website under the domain name <oscardelarenta.com> since 1997 and <oscardelarenta.us> since 2025 that sells ready-to-wear clothing, bridal clothing, bags, accessories, jewelry, and other items. Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations in the United States including “oscar de la renta” as an element of the mark (the “OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks”) as f ollows: Mark Jurisdiction Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date OSCAR DE LA RENTA (Desig n) United States 25 2,119,455 December 9, 1997 OSCAR DE LA RENTA United States 25 1,334,456 May 7, 1985 The disputed domain name was registered October 16, 2025. Prio r to the f iling of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website copying aspects of Complainant’s web site, including the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks and pictures of Complainant’s products for sale. Respondent’s website also included reference to another entity, including a copyright notice allegedly owned by that entity. At the time of the f iling of the Complaint, the disputed domain name no longer resolved to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that it has rights in the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks, as evidenced herein, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks because the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks and the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name despite the addition of the letters “is” and “us” at the end of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that “is” is the country code f or Iceland and “us” is the country code f or United States and theref ore the added letters merely describe the provenance or destination of the goods at Respondent’s website and that neither set of letters prevents a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks. Complainant f urther contends that the use of the generic Top-Level Domain (“g TLD”) is insuf f icient to distinguish the disputed domain name f rom the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and has never been authorized to use or register the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name because Respondent’s website is a knock-off version of Complainant’s website. Rather, Complainant contends Respondent’s website misleads consumers and diverts them from Complainant’s website f or the commercial gain of Respondent and is theref ore not a bona fide offering of goods or services, particularly since Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a fraudulent manner. Complainant further contends that Respondent’s website is intended to promote the products of one of Complainant’s competitors, the af orementioned entity, and redirect Complainant’s customers to the competitor’s website. Finally, Complainant notes that Respondent has page 3 deactivated its website, which is further proof of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant contends Respondent had actual knowledge of the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks p rio r to registering the disputed domain name, as evidenced by Respondent’s website, and therefore registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of a fake contact address at Respondent’s website utilizing the disputed domain name is f urther evidence of bad f aith as is Respondent’s ref erenced association with a competitor to Complainant. Finaly, Complainant contends that Respondent’s use of a privacy service is f urther evidence of bad f aith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between 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. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark f or 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 f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the words “is” and “us,” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima f acie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating page 4 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 f or illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent was clearly aware of the OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks prior to registering and using the disputed domain name in association with a website that copies Complainants OSCAR DE LA RENTA Marks and includes images of Complainant’s goods and generally conf uses consumers as to the source of the goods offered for sale therein. Additional evidence of bad f aith is present in Respondent’s use of contact inf ormation including the disputed domain name, the use of a privacy service, and the inclusion of clearly f alse inf ormation in the contact inf ormation provided to the Reg istrar. The Panel believes the information about Complainant’s competitor included in Respondent’s website relates to other impersonation activities of Respondent, as the domain name used f or the competitor’s website in Respondent’s website also includes the wo rd “is” and is not the of f icial website of the competitor. 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel f inds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <oscardelarentais-us.shop> be transf erred to Complainant. /Timothy D. Casey/ Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: January 20, 2026

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