Valentino-australia.com + 4 more domains

The timeline behind valentino-australia.com

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. John E Johnson, Sheryl R Thomas, Joseph J Hunsinger, Josephine E Winder, Marc L Merritt Case No. D2026-0556 1. The Parties The Complainant is Valentino S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondents are John E Johnson, Germany, Sheryl R Thomas, Germany, Joseph J Hunsinger, Germany, Josephine E Winder, Germany, and Marc L Merritt, Germany. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <valentino-australia.com>, <valentinoca.com>, <valentino-danmark.com>, <valentinoschweiz.com>, and <valentinosuk.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 10, 2026. On February 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 13, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted For Privacy, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 16, 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 February 18, 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 19, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 11, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on March 12, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Zoltán Takács as the sole panelist in this matter on March 19, 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 major fashion house founded in 1960, available in more than 90 countries. The Complainant directly operates 160 stores located in elegant shopping streets and is also available in over 1300 points of sale worldwide. The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations comprising its VALENTINO mark, including the: - International Trademark Registration No. 570593 registered on April 24, 1991; and - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 001990407 registered on September 18, 2008. The Complainant operates its main website at “www.valentino.com” which features information about its brand and products and an online store where its branded goods are advertised and offered for sale. The corresponding domain name <valentino.com> was registered on July 21, 1998. The disputed domain names were registered on October 13, 2025, and have resolved to almost identical websites in English (<valentino-australia.com>, <valentinoca.com>, and <valentinosuk.com>), Danish (<valentino-danmark.com>) and German (<valentinoschweiz.com>). The websites featured the photo of the same Valentino boutique, displayed the Complainant’s mark and signature logo and purportedly offered for sale VALENTINO branded products. Currently the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites. 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 which incorporate the VALENTINO mark in its entirety with the addition of the terms “australia”, “danmark” (“Denmark” in Danish”), “ca” (abbreviation for “Canada”), “Schweiz” (“Switzerland” in German) and “uk” (abbreviation for “United Kingdom”), hyphens and in case of the disputed domain name <valentinosuk.com> a single letter “s” are confusingly similar to the mark; - the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since they are unable to rely on any of the circumstances set out in paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the Policy; - the registration of the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s mark in mind and use of the disputed domain names for websites that displayed its famous mark and imagery and offered counterfeit products is evidence of the Respondents’ bad faith. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred from the Respondents to the Complainant. page 3 B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that: (i) the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and (iii) the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 6.1 Procedural Matter – Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to five domain names registered by five different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The registrants of the disputed domain names did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards to common control, the Panel notes that: (i) the disputed domain names are registered with the same Registrar; (ii) the disputed domain names all target the Complainant and its mark and the structure of the disputed domain names (mark + combinations of geographical terms) are identical or highly similar; (iii) the registrants of the disputed domain names are all based in Wittendorp, Germany and share the same email address; and (iv) the disputed domain names have been used to resolve to almost identical websites that featured the photo of the same Valentino boutique, displayed the Complainant’s mark and signature logo and purportedly offered for sale VALENTINO branded products. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. page 4 6.2 Substantive Matters – Three Elements 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 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced and recognizable within the disputed domain names. Although the addition of other terms, here “australia” (“Australia”), danmark” (“Denmark” in Danish”), “ca” (abbreviation for “Canada”), “Schweiz” (“Switzerland” in German) and “uk” (abbreviation for “United Kingdom”), hyphens and in case of the disputed domain name <valentinosuk.com> a single letter “s” may bear an assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that 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. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.8. 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. According to the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent has used the disputed domain names to host websites that feature the photo of the same Valentino boutique, displayed the Complainant’s mark and signature logo and purportedly offered for sale VALENTINO branded products which the Complainant assumes were counterfeit. There is no evidence as to whether the goods offered on the Respondent’s websites at the disputed domain names were counterfeit or “genuine”, or whether any of those goods ultimately existed. While panels have recognized the limited rights of resellers to use a third party’s trademark, such use must satisfy fair use requirements e.g. described in WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8. page 5 Here, there was no information disclosing the lack of relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant and the websites at the disputed domain names implied that the products offered for sale on the Respondent’s websites originated with the Complainant, contrary to the fact that they did not. Consequently, even if the products that appeared on the Respondent’s websites under the disputed domain names would have existed and would have been genuine, the Respondent’s websites would still not have qualified as fair use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8.1 and Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. What is evident is that the Complainant never authorized, licensed, or allowed the Respondent to use its VALENTINO mark in the disputed domain names or in any other way that would confer validity or legitimacy upon such use. In addition, the misleading nature of the disputed domain names <valentino-australia.com>, <valentinoca.com>, <valentino-danmark.com>, and <valentinoschweiz.com>, incorporating the Complainant’s mark with addition of various descriptive terms carries a risk of implied affiliation, reflecting the Respondent’s ultimate intent to mislead Internet users. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The Panel finds that 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. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s VALENTINO mark is well-known globally (see Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye, WIPO Case No. D2016-1747) and that its registration date predates the date of registration of the disputed domain names. The mere registration of a domain name that is identical or in this case confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The websites at the disputed domain names prominently featured the photo of the Complainant’s store, its mark and signature logo and offered for sale allegedly counterfeit VALENTINO branded products. In view of the Panel, it is clear that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and the VALENTINO mark and registered the disputed domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent’s intent to target the Complainant and its mark can be readily inferred from the contents of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain names. Visitors of these websites might have reasonably believed that they were connected to or approved by the Complainant, while that was clearly not the case. As mentioned above currently the disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites. However, this does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Considering the totality of the circumstances of the case in this context the Panel notes the distinctiveness and worldwide reputation of the VALENTINO mark; the composition of the disputed domain names and the nature of the Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain names as mentioned above and finds that in these circumstances the current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. page 6 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 <valentino-australia.com>, <valentinoca.com>, <valentino-danmark.com>, <valentinoschweiz.com>, and <valentinosuk.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Zoltán Takács/ Zoltán Takács Sole Panelist Date: April 2, 2026

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