Miumiu-jp.com

The timeline behind miumiu-jp.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 Prada S.A. v. Gang Liu, Bin Zhou Fu Xi Shang Mao You Xian Gong Si Case No. D2026-0578 1. The Parties The Complainant is Prada S.A., Luxembourg, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is Gang Liu, Bin Zhou Fu Xi Shang Mao You Xian Gong Si, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <miumiu-jp.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2026. On February 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 12, 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 (Registration Private Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 13, 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 13, 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 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 10, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 12, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Masato Dogauchi as the sole panelist in this matter on March 17, 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 opened a luxury store in Milan, Italy in 1913, selling leather handbags, travelling trunks, leather accessories, beauty cases and so on with its traditional brand, PRADA, and expanded its business worldwide. In 1993, it launched its new brand, MIU MIU. The Complainant operates in 70 countries with over 15,200 employees at present. The Complainant has trademarks such as: - European Union Trademark Registration No. 004253191, MIU MIU, registered on February 16, 2006; - International Trademark Registration No. 593101, MIU-MIU, registered on October 16, 1992; and - Japanese Trademark Registration No. 4074946, MIU-MIU, registered on October 24, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on August 20, 2025 and resolves to a website, in Japanese language, featuring the Complainant’s MIU MIU mark, and offering for sale purported MIU MIU products at discounted prices. On October 30, 2025, the Complainant’s representative sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent demanding the Respondent to cease any use of the disputed domain name and transfer it to the Complainant, and he/she also sent a contact request for trademark infringement to the Respondent. On November 21, 2025, a cease and desist letter was sent to the hosting provider of the website. In absence of a prompt reply, reminders were sent on December 2, 2025 and January 5, 2026. The Respondent and the hosting provider did not reply. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 15(a), a panel shall decide a case on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any substantive arguments in this case, the following decision is rendered on the basis of the Complainant’s contentions and other evidence submitted by the Complainant. In accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a), in order to qualify for a remedy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: page 3 (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 entirety of the MIU MIU mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 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. page 4 In the present case, noting the fact that the Complainant has been selling goods with MIU MIU brand since 1993, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s MIU MIU trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name on August 20, 2025. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. With regard to the requirement that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, in this case impersonation/passing off constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain as described above constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has not replied to the communication from the Complainant. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has 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 <miumiu-jp.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Masato Dogauchi/ Masato Dogauchi Sole Panelist Date: March 18, 2026

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