Velitessports.shop

The timeline behind velitessports.shop

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 Velites Fitness, S.L. v. Olivia Davis Case No. D2026-0342 1. The Parties The Complainant is Velites Fitness, S.L., Spain, represented by AB Asesores Propiedad Industrial e Intelectual S.L.P., Spain. The Respondent is Olivia Davis, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <velitessports.shop> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2026. On January 30, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 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 the Complainant on February 3, 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 February 4, 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 February 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on March 9, 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 organized under the laws of Spain and active in the development and commercialization of sports equipment and apparel, particularly in the field of strength training and functional fitness. The record indicates that the Complainant has conducted its activities under the VELITES mark since at least 2015, developing a commercial presence through online channels and direct distribution. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for VELITES, including, inter alia: • European Union Trademark Registration No. 14459002 – VELITES, registered on December 10, 2015, for goods and services in Classes 25, 28, and 35; • United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 914459002 – VELITES, registered on December 10, 2015, for goods and services in Classes 25, 28 and 35; • United States Trademark Registration No. 88064081 – VELITES, registered on October 8, 2019, for goods and services in Classes 28 and 35. The Complainant also operates domain names incorporating its mark, including <velitessport.com>, through which it promotes and sells its products. The disputed domain name was registered on July 18, 2025. The evidence submitted with the Complaint shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that reproduces the Complainant’s trademark and visual identity, including product images and overall presentation, in a manner apt to convey the impression of an official or authorized online store associated with the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name reproduces its trademark in its entirety and merely adds a term that directly corresponds to its field of activity, thereby reinforcing, rather than dispelling, the likelihood of confusion. The Complainant states that it has no relationship with the Respondent and has not authorized the use of its trademark. It further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, having no authorization, affiliation, or independent entitlement to use the VELITES mark. The Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a website that appropriates its branding and presentation, thus misleading Internet users as to the origin of the goods offered. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, with the evident purpose of exploiting the reputation associated with its trademark. page 3 The Complainant requests cancellation of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be established by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are: 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 in respect to the disputed domain name; and iii. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name. In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. 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 disputed domain name reproduces the trademark VELITES, and the Complainant has established their rights in the trademark VELITES. The disputed domain name incorporates that mark in its entirety. The addition of the term “sports” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the mark and the disputed domain name. The Top-Level Domain “.shop” is generally disregarded in the comparison. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The first element of the Policy has therefore been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no indication in the record that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant or has been authorized to use its trademark. Nor is there evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The additional term “sports” reinforces the association with the page 4 Complainant, given its direct correspondence with the Complainant’s field of activity. More significantly, the use made of the disputed domain name does not support any inference of legitimacy. The website associated with the domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark and visual identity in a manner that goes beyond mere reference or descriptive use. It reflects, rather, an intentional replication of the Complainant’s online presence. In such circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of any plausible basis upon which the Respondent could assert rights or legitimate interests. The conduct at issue is not compatible with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor with any form of fair or noncommercial use. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s prima facie case remains unrebutted. The second element of the Policy has therefore been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel considers that the circumstances of the case, taken as a whole, support a finding of bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name and presents a sufficient degree of distinctiveness within the relevant market. The composition of the disputed domain name - combining the Complainant’s mark with a term directly related to its commercial activity - is not incidental. It reveals a deliberate attempt to target the Complainant and to appropriate its distinctive identifier in a manner capable of misleading Internet users. This inference is confirmed by the actual use of the disputed domain name. The record shows that the Respondent has configured the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that reproduces the Complainant’s trademark, product images, and overall presentation, thereby creating the appearance of an official or authorized channel. Such use is inherently misleading. It is apt to induce Internet users to believe that they are dealing with the Complainant or with an entity legitimately connected to it. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The absence of any Response further reinforces the conclusion that no credible good-faith explanation exists for the Respondent’s conduct. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third element of the Policy has hence been established. 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 <velitessports.shop> be cancelled. /Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira/ Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira Sole Panelist Date: March 23, 2026

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