Valentinoband.net, Valentinosdesigns.com

The timeline behind valentinoband.net

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Valentino S.p.A. v. sun ms Case No. D2026-0137 1. The Parties The Complainant is Valentino S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is sun ms, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <valentinoband.net> and <valentinosdesigns.com> are registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 13, 2026. On January 14, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 16, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 22, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2026. The Center appointed Benjamin Fontaine as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is VALENTINO S.p.A, an Italian fashion house founded in 1960 by the fashion designer Valentino Garavani and his business partner Giancarlo Giammetti. The Complainant is a major player on the fashion scene and offers a wide range of luxury products from Haute Couture and Prèt-à-Porter to an extensive accessories collection that includes bags, shoes, small leather goods, belts, eyewear, silks and perfumes. According to uncontested elements, the Complainant’s VALENTINO products are available in over 90 countries through 160 Valentino directly operated stores and over 1300 points of sale. The Complainant is notably the owner of the following trade marks: - International trade mark VALENTINO No. 570593, registered on April 24, 1991, duly renewed since then, notably designating Belarus, China, and Russian Federation , and designating products of classes 3, 14, 18 and 25, - European Union trade mark VALENTINO No. 001990407 registered on September 18, 2008, for products and services of classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 34 and 35, - International trade mark No. 975800, registered on July 22, 2008, duly renewed since then, notably designating China, Japan, Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland, the United States of America, and designating products of classes 18 and 25. Both disputed domain names, <valentinoband.net> and <valentinosdesigns.com>, were registered on October 24, 2025. Initially, the disputed domain names resolved to websites available at “www.valentinoband.net” and at “www.valentinosdesigns.com”, respectively. These sites prominently displayed the Complainant’s trade marks, including the corresponding logo, and offered for sale imitations of VALENTINO products at very low prices. Indeed, the websites included a disclaimer stating “our products are inspired by famous designs, they are not affiliated with, authorized or endorsed by [V]alentino [...]”. Following a cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant, the disputed domain names have been redirected to a website available at a different domain name, which also displayed the Complainant’s trade marks, and offered “dupes” and “replicas” VALENTINO products for sale. Indeed, the website contained the same disclaimer as mentioned above and displayed in the browser tab “Valentino Dupe Bags & Shoes Store – Exclusive Outlet USA”. Subsequently, at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names redirected to a page indicating that the related website had been permanently closed. However, at the time of drafting of this Decision, both disputed domain names redirect again to the aforementioned website that offers VALENTINO dupes and replicas for sale. page 3 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier trade mark VALENTINO as it is identically reproduced within them and remains recognizable. Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant notably submits that the Respondent is not a licensee or an authorized agent, nor is the Respondent in any other way authorized to use the VALENTINO trade marks. The Complainant also argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as they resolve/redirect to a website offering counterfeit goods for sale. Third, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant notably contends that the Respondent could not have possibly been unaware of the existence of the VALENTINO trade mark when it registered the disputed domain names, in light of the extensive use of the said trade mark, and of the fact that the websites under the disputed domain names featured this brand and VALENTINO counterfeit goods. Furthermore, such use of the disputed domain names evidences that the Respondent intends to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant’s trade mark, by attracting Internet users seeking VALENTINO-branded products to its own websites for commercial gain, thereby intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s earlier trade mark. The Complainant also puts forward that the deactivation of the websites under the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the passive holding doctrine. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the VALENTINO mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Indeed, the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names. Although the addition of other terms, here, “band” in the first disputed domain name, and the letter “s” plus “designs” in the second one, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 4 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 that 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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Not only is the Respondent unauthorized to use the VALENTINO trade mark and not commonly known by the disputed domain names, but the Complainant has also evidenced that said disputed domain names are used in connection with websites purporting to sell goods identified as “replica” of the Complainant’s products. Panels have held that the use of domain names for illegitimate activity, here, claimed passing off/sale of counterfeit goods, 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. In the present case, the Respondent has undoubtedly registered, and is using, the disputed domain names to resolve/redirect to websites featuring the prior VALENTINO well-known trademark, including the corresponding logo, and offering “replicas” of the products related to said trademark for sale. This situation demonstrates by itself that the Respondent was perfectly aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain names. Besides, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed passing off/sale of counterfeit goods constitutes bad faith. Furthermore, the redirection of the disputed domain names to a website available through a domain name that does not include the VALENTINO trademark, following the Complainant’s cease and desist letter, and the temporary closure of the related website with a message indicating that the latter was permanently closed, constitute further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. page 5 Finally, the presence of a disclaimer on the websites previously accessible under the disputed domain names does not change this finding of bad faith. Indeed, as mentioned above, the disputed domain names are used for illegitimate activities, and “where the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent’s bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith”. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.7. The Panel finds that the 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 names <valentinoband.net> and <valentinosdesigns.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Benjamin Fontaine/ Benjamin Fontaine Sole Panelist Date: March 4, 2026

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