Barolo.online

The timeline behind barolo.online

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 Consorzio di Tutela Barolo Barbaresco Alba Langhe e Dogliani v. Qingqing Yu Case No. D2025-5339 1. The Parties The Complainant is Consorzio di Tutela Barolo Barbaresco Alba Langhe e Dogliani, Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is Qingqing Yu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <barolo.online> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint, which initially included two disputed domain names, was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 22, 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 (“Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 24, 2025, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file a separate complaint for each disputed domain name associated with a different underlying registrant or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants were in fact the same entity and/or that both domain names were under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 29, 2025, withdrawing one of the disputed domain names from the present proceeding. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 27, 2026. The Center appointed Jane Seager as the sole panelist in this matter on February 2, 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, Consorzio di Tutela Barolo Barbaresco Alba Langhe e Dogliani, is the sole official body appointed by Decree of the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Food Sovereignty and Forests for the protection, promotion, consumer information and general care of the interest regarding the Barolo wine designation. Barolo wine has acquired recognition as a Protected Designation of Origin, imposing strict requirements for soil, elevation and climate. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for BAROLO, including: - International Trademark Registration No. 1022062, BAROLO, registered on September 29, 2009, designating multiple jurisdictions including China; and - Italian Trademark Registration No. 302020000055873, BAROLO, registered on October 7, 2021. The Respondent appears to be based in China. The disputed domain name was registered on November 4, 2025. The disputed domain name redirects to a GoDaddy.com webpage where it is offered for sale with a buy-now price of USD 1,450. The Panel notes that Barolo is a municipality in the Province of Cunio in the Italian region of Piedmont, being home to the Barolo wine of the same name. 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. The Complainant asserts rights in the trademark BAROLO. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized or consented to the Respondent’s registration or use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is being used to exploit the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a GoDaddy.com sales page offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 1,450 does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further asserts that there is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any trademark rights in BAROLO held by the Respondent. page 3 The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The Complainant argues that offering the disputed domain name for sale at a high price is evidence of bad faith. The Complainant infers that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s rights and is unfairly taking advantage of the reputation and distinctiveness of the BAROLO trademark. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent is depriving the Complainant of the opportunity to register the disputed domain name and is creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to prevail, the Complainant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that it has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: (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. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the BAROLO trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s BAROLO trademark in its entirety without alteration or addition. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Noting that the Complaint has not been successful under the third element of the Policy, as set out below, the Panel considers it unnecessary to enter findings in relation to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As noted above, the disputed domain name redirects to a GoDaddy parking page where the disputed domain name is offered for sale. However, as stated in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.1, the mere fact that a domain name is offered for sale, even at a profit, is not necessarily indicative of bad faith unless there is evidence that the respondent’s primary purpose was to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a page 4 competitor. In this case, there is no evidence that the Respondent approached the Complainant or otherwise sought to sell the disputed domain name specifically to the Complainant or its competitors, nor is there evidence of any use of the disputed domain name suggesting an intent to exploit the Complainant’s trademark rights or to create confusion. Furthermore, while the Complainant owns trademark registrations for BAROLO and is the official body responsible for the protection and promotion of the Barolo wine designation, “Barolo” is also the name of a municipality in the Province of Cuneo, Italy, which is widely known as the origin of the Complainant’s wine. The Complainant has not addressed this dual significance (to the contrary, it asserts that Barolo is “not a common or descriptive term”), nor has it provided evidence that the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name was motivated by the Complainant’s trademark rights rather than the geographic meaning of the term. The Complainant has also failed to distinguish between the general recognition of “Barolo” as a type of wine and the specific reputation and legal protection afforded to “Barolo” as a protected designation of origin. Furthermore, the Complainant has not provided evidence that the Respondent’s actions were targeted at the Complainant or its trademarks, nor has it established a sufficient basis to infer such intent. See Regulatory Board of the Rioja Qualified Designation of Origin (D.O.CA) v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID: 43528876679114, Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Privacy.co.com, Inc Privacy ID# 1027108 / Kevin Daste, WIPO Case No. D2018-0168: “[...] the Panel has not been given a good reason to conclude that, whenever the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, it most likely did so with reference to the Complainant’s trade marks, rather than (a) purely for its geographical meaning, as the Respondent claims or (b) more likely, but also uncontroversial in the context of this case, because it reflected a kind of wine which emanated from a particular region and bore a particular style or quality. The Complainant’s case on this crucial issue never moved beyond a presumption. Bearing in mind that, ultimately, the burden is on the Complainant to prove its case on the balance of probabilities, the Panel has concluded that the Complainant has failed to establish the third element of the Policy.” In the absence of evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark in mind, or that the Respondent’s conduct otherwise falls within the circumstances described in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, the Panel cannot conclude that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Jane Seager/ Jane Seager Sole Panelist Date: February 23, 2026

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