Valentinoebeauty.com

The timeline behind valentinoebeauty.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 Valentino S.p.A. v. lar frank, no Case No. D2026-0169 1. The Parties The Complainant is Valentino S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is lar frank, no, Philippines. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <valentinoebeauty.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 15, 2026. On January 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 16, 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 (Data Not Available) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 19, 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 21, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 16, 2026. The Center appointed Andrew Brown K.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 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 major fashion house founded in 1960. The Complainant operates as a major player on the fashion scene, offering a range of luxury products from Haute Couture and Pret-a-Porter to an extensive collection of accessories that includes bags, belts, shoes, small leather goods, eyewear, silks and perfumes. The Complainant owns a number of relevant registrations for the trademark VALENTINO (“the VALENTINO Trademark”) including: Territory Number Trademark Registration Class International trademark 570593 VALENTINO April 24, 1991 3, 14, 18 and 25 International trademark 764790 VALENTINO November 20, 2000 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 34 and 35 European Union 001990407 VALENTINO September 18, 2008 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 34 and 35 United States of America 1153226 VALENTINO May 5, 1981 25 Philippines PH419890070274 VALENTINO February 25, 2010 25 Philippines PH4201900012189 VALENTINO November 6, 2020 3, 35 The disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2025. A website was located at the disputed domain name displaying the Complainant’s VALENTINO trademark. 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 it has trademark rights to the VALENTINO Trademark in respect of luxury fashion products and accessories. It claims it has created a worldwide reputation and goodwill under its VALENTINO Trademark as a leading manufacturer of luxury products including fashion accessories. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name completely incorporates its VALENTINO Trademark. It further contends that previous panels have found that where a disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark or where, at least, a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, then the disputed domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for the purposes of UDRP standing. Here the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s VALENTINO Trademark only by the addition of “e” and “beauty”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In this regard the Complainant states that: (a) the Respondent is not a licensee or authorized agent of the Complainant nor are they in any other way authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark; (b) the Respondent is not an authorized reseller of the Complainant’s VALENTINO Trademark products; page 3 (c) in light of the Respondent’s name, it is clear that the Respondent is not commonly known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name; (d) the Respondent has not provided any evidence of use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of this dispute; (e) there is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or tarnish the Complainant’s VALENTINO Trademark; (f) according to the Complainant’s searches, the Respondent does not have any trademark registration for VALENTINO. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. It states that, if the Respondent had conducted any good faith searches before registering the disputed domain name, it would have readily found reference to the Complainant and its VALENTINO Trademark and have appreciated the likelihood of confusion. The Complainant also relies on the fact that the landing page at the disputed domain name initially offered VALENTINO perfumes for sale and subsequently a website promoting cosmetics (without any disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant) – thus demonstrating that the Respondent’s purpose in registering the disputed domain name was to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation and its VALENTINO Trademark. As evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith, the Complainant further relies on the failure of the Respondent to reply to its cease and desist letter. In its amendment to the complaint (once the identity of the Respondent was disclosed by the registrar) the Complainant relies on the fact that the Respondent has previously been involved as respondent in seven UDRP disputes that were decided in favor of the various complainants. The Complainant therefore relies on a pattern of bad faith conduct by the Respondent. It states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name, and that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct. 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 further finds that the Complainant’s VALENTINO Trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The VALENTINO Trademark has been incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. 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 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 name. 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. 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 finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith for the following reasons: (a) the Complainant has clearly demonstrated its rights to the VALENTINO Trademark and that the trademark was well-known and had a reputation well prior to registration of the disputed domain name on October 20, 2025. The Complainant’s trademark registrations and its use of those marks well pre-date the registration of the disputed domain name; (b) the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s VALENTINO Trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the VALENTINO Trademark with the suffix or addition “ebeauty” clearly suggesting that the reference to the Complainant’s trademark was intended. This is confirmed by the landing page created by the Respondent at the disputed domain name upon registration which offered purported VALENTINO perfumes for sale; (c) any good faith search of the Internet before registration of the disputed domain name would have revealed to the Respondent the Complainant’s trademark rights in and existing use of its VALENTINO Trademark. The Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons: (a) the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name has been used to intentionally attract consumers through a landing page offering purported VALENTINO products; (b) the landing page at the disputed domain name included images of VALENTINO products and a logo VALENTINO and BEAUTY which was copied from the website “www.valentino-beauty.com” operated by the Complainant’s licensee, L’Oreal; (c) a landing page at the disputed domain name still promotes cosmetics under the “valentinoebeauty” and contains a copyright claim; page 5 (d) the Panel is entitled to draw and does draw adverse influences from the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint and to the factual allegations of the Complainant. Further, on the facts of this case, the Panel draws adverse inferences from the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter; (e) the Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct. Previous panels have found that a pattern of bad faith conduct requires more than one, but as few as two instances of abusive domain name registration. A pattern of abuse has been found where a respondent registers, similar or otherwise, multiple abusive domain names corresponding to the distinct marks of other brand owners: WIPO Overview 3.1, para 3.1.2. In this case the Complainant has provided citations for seven previous cases where complainants have been successful in their complaints of abusive domain name registration against the Respondent, see, e.g., Euronext N.V. v. no, lar frank, WIPO Case No. D2023-2664; Huda Beauty Limited v. no lar frank, WIPO Case No. D2025-4181. The Panel therefore 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 name <valentinoebeauty.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrew Brown K.C./ Andrew Brown K.C. Sole Panelist Date: March 2, 2026

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