Farfetch-us.com

The timeline behind farfetch-us.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 Farfetch UK Limited v. Hoang Van Hop Case No. D2026-0119 1. The Parties The Complainant is Farfetch UK Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Gowling WLG UK LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Hoang Van Hop, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <farfetch-us.com> is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount- Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 12, 2026. On January 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 14, 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 (GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM JSC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 23, 2026, 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 January 27, 2026. 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 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 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, Farfetch UK Limited, operates an internationally recognized online marketplace dedicated to luxury fashion goods. Created in 2007, the Farfetch platform connects consumers worldwide with boutiques and brands offering luxury products. According to the evidence submitted in the record, the platform serves customers in more than 190 countries and territories and aggregates offerings from a large network of boutiques, department stores, and fashion brands. The Complainant conducts its principal online operations through the domain name <farfetch.com>, which has been active since at least October 11, 2008. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark FARFETCH in several jurisdictions. As evidenced in the Complaint, these include, inter alia: - International Trademark No. 1280050B – FARFETCH, registered on February 25, 2015, in Classes 9, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42 and 45; - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00801280050 – FARFETCH, registered on November 2, 2016, in Classes 9, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42 and 45; - Brazilian Trademark No. 904298868 – FARFETCH.COM, registered on December 11, 2018, in Class 35; and - United States of America Trademark No. 7283003 – FARFETCH, registered on January 23, 2024, in Classes 3 and 21. Copies of the relevant trademark registration certificates were submitted as Annex 8 to the Complaint. These trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name <farfetch-us.com> was registered on July 14, 2025. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying the FARFETCH trademark and inviting users to register or log in. The Complainant further asserts that the website includes elements associated with a phishing scheme intended to deceive Internet users into providing personal or financial information. The Respondent has no known relationship with the Complainant and has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its FARFETCH trademark because the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. page 3 Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and by operating a website impersonating the Complainant’s brand. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated prior rights in the trademark FARFETCH through multiple trademark registrations. It is well accepted that the first element of the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The disputed domain name <farfetch-us.com> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the term “-us” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Prior panels have consistently held that the addition of descriptive or geographic terms to a complainant’s trademark does not avoid confusing similarity under the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) 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 3.1, section 2.1. page 4 The Complainant informs that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark, and nothing in the record indicates that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent has made no attempt to rebut the Complainant’s assertions. The Complainant has established that the Respondent has not been authorized to use the FARFETCH trademark, is not affiliated with the Complainant, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The evidence further indicates that the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying the FARFETCH trademark and presenting itself in a manner capable of misleading Internet users. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for fraudulent purposes, including impersonation, cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Further, the term “us” may even reinforce the likelihood of confusion, as Internet users could reasonably interpret the disputed domain name as referring to a regional version of the Complainant’s website. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. In the absence of any Response from the Respondent rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie showing, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that the second element of paragraph 4(a) 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 evidence points to a deliberate effort by the Respondent to exploit the Complainant’s reputation. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark and presenting itself in a manner capable of misleading Internet users into believing that the site is operated or authorized by the Complainant. The geographic suffix “-us” reinforces the impression that the site is an authorized United States of America branch of the Complainant. The record contains evidence suggesting that the disputed domain name could be used in connection with phishing activity intended to deceive users into disclosing personal or financial information. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, bad faith is established when a respondent attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s conduct aligns closely with this definition. Panels have consistently found bad faith in circumstances involving unauthorized use of a complainant’s mark to give the appearance of an official or legitimate outlet. See, for example, Microsoft Corp. v. Microsof.com aka Tarek Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2000-0548, and Baccarat SA v. Web Domain Names, WIPO Case No. D2006-0038. This Panel has likewise held in previous decisions that websites mimicking a complainant’s identity for commercial gain represent textbook bad-faith registration and use. The Respondent’s silence further supports the inference of bad faith. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <farfetch-us.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira/ Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira Sole Panelist Date: March 12, 2026

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