Sezanechristmas.com

The timeline behind sezanechristmas.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 Benda Bili v. asd asfasf, asgfasgasgas Case No. D2025-5366 1. The Parties The Complainant is Benda Bili, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is asd asfasf, asgfasgasgas, Italy. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <sezanechristmas.com> is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 22, 2025. On December 23, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 24, 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 (Anonymous) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 24, 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 December 29, 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 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. page 2 The Center appointed Delia-Mihaela Belciu as the sole panelist in this matter on January 29, 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 specialized in ready-to -wear collections and accessories for women available through its online shop at “www.sezane.com”. The Complainant is the owner of the following SEZANE trademark registration: - the International trademark registration No. 1170876 for SEZANE, registered on June 3, 2013, for goods in classes 14, 18, 25. The Complainant also owns the domain name <sezane.com> registered on April 3, 2003, used in relation to its online shop at “www.sezane.com”. The disputed domain name <sezanechristmas.com> was registered on December 21, 2025, and is currently redirecting to the Complainant’s website “www.sezane.com”. 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: (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEZANE mark as it contains the SEZANE trademark identically, with the addition of the term “christmas”, which is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SEZANE; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name for a number of reasons, among which that, (1) the Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as the disputed domain name, (2) the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. No license nor authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent to make any use of its trademark SEZANE, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name, (3) the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s website; (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for a number of reasons, among which that, (1) given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s SEZANE trademark and its reputation, the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant‘s SEZANE trademark, (2) the disputed domain name is used by the Respondent in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to succeed, such must prove, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In case all three elements above have been fulfilled, the Panel is able to grant the remedy requested by the Complainant. Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn. 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 3.0”), 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 Panel finds that the entirety of the SEZANE mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name with the addition of the descriptive term “christmas”, which does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SEZANE mark. 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 terms, in this case “christmas”, 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. In what concerns the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in relation to the disputed domain name, such is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 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 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 page 4 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. Thus, based on the available evidence, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Sezane”, is not an affiliate of, nor has any kind of business relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to make use of its SEZANE trademark in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name which incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s SEZANE mark with the addition of the descriptive term “christmas”, corresponding to a well-known holiday, redirects to the Complainant’s website “www.sezane.com”, carrying a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s mark to redirect users to the Complainant’s website, absent some alternative explanation from the Respondent, does not support a claim to rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3. 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 Complainant’s rights in the SEZANE mark predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. In light of the above as well as of the distinctive character of the Complainant’s SEZANE mark, the Panel finds that it is not conceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s SEZANE mark, which supports a finding of bad faith registration. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. 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 disputed domain name which incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s SEZANE mark with the addition of the descriptive term “christmas”, corresponding to a well known holiday, redirects to the Complainant’s website at “www.sezane.com”, aspects which support a finding that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’a mark and activity in mind. Moreover, Panels have found that redirecting a domain name to the complainant’s website creates an ongoing threat to the complainant, as Internet users may associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s website, where the Respondent can change this redirection at any time. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy and finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <sezanechristmas.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Delia-Mihaela Belciu/ Delia-Mihaela Belciu Sole Panelist Date: February 12, 2026

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