Us-scentbird.com

The timeline behind us-scentbird.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 Scentbird Inc. v. Pierpaolo Corsi Case No. D2026-0076 1. The Parties Complainant is Scentbird Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Cole-Frieman & Mallon, LLP, United States. Respondent is Pierpaolo Corsi, Italy. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <us-scentbird.com> is registered with Register SPA (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 9, 2026. On January 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 12, 2026, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 13, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed amended Complaints on January 16 and January 20, 2026. On January 13, 2026, the Center informed the Parties in Italian and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Italian. On January 20, 2026, Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceedings. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainant’s submission. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 Respondent in Italian and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 22, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 12, 2026. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 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 Complainant is a United States based subscription service for designer fragrances operating at “www.scentbird.com”. Complainant offers over 1,000 perfumes and colognes through brand partnerships. Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark registration No. 5285079 for SCENTBIRD (word), filed on February 14, 2017, and registered on September 12, 2017, for services in international class 35. Complainant also owns the domain name registration <scentbird.com> since July 22, 2013, under which it maintains its main website. The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2025, and at the time of filing of the Complaint it resolved to a website (the “Website”), mimicking that of Complainant, prominently displaying Complainant’s SCENTBIRD trademark and purporting to offer a fragrance subscription. The Website copied Complainant’s website graphics, layout, and had the same subscription-focused layout featuring a large headline for “designer scents,” a struck-through monthly price paired with a discounted introductory price and a prominent “Try first month” call-to -action button. It also copied Complainant’s website phrase “Skip the department store. We’ll deliver new designer scents to you every month” and product imagery depicting Complainant’s SCENTBIRD-branded fragrance cases/vials. The disputed domain name currently leads to a blocked 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. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceedings The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Italian. 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 proceedings shall be the language of the registration agreement. page 3 The Complaint was filed in English. Complainant requested that the language of the proceedings be English for several reasons, including the fact that the registration agreement is also available in English on the Registrar’s website and that having to translate the Complaint and supporting annexes into Italian would impose unnecessary expenses on Complainant and delay. Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceedings. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, and noting that the website previously accessible at the disputed domain name was in the English language, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English. 6.2. Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “us” and a hyphen, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such terms 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. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik, WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 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 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Prior to the notice of the dispute, Respondent did not demonstrate any use of the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the disputed domain name resolved to the Website, which featured Complainant’s trademark and copied several elements from Complainant’s website, including Complainant’s name in the copyright notice, suggesting falsely that it was that of Complainant or an affiliated entity or an authorized partner of Complainant. Per the Complaint, Respondent is not an affiliated entity or an authorized partner of Complainant and no agreement, express or otherwise, exists allowing the use of Complainant’s trademark on the Website and the use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Because the SCENTBIRD mark had been used and registered by the time of the disputed domain name registration by Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case page 5 No. D2000-0226). The Panel also takes into account the content of the Website which mimicked that of Complainant. As regards bad faith use of the disputed domain name, Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name was used to resolve to the Website, which mimicked that of Complainant and prominently displayed Complainant’s registered trademark, copying text and product images from Complainant’s website, as well as other elements, thereby giving the false impression that it was operated by Complainant, or a company affiliated to Complainant or an authorised partner of Complainant. The disputed domain name was therefore used to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website it resolves to. This supports bad faith registration and use (Booking.com BV v. Chen Guo Long, WIPO Case No. D2017-0311; Ebel International Limited v. Alan Brashear, WIPO Case No. D2017-0001; Walgreen Co. v. Muhammad Azeem / Wang Zheng, Nicenic International Group Co., Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1607; Oculus VR, LLC v. Sean Lin, WIPO Case No. DCO2016-0034; and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 <us-scentbird.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Marina Perraki/ Marina Perraki Sole Panelist Date: March 2, 2026

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