Doyouitaly-noleggio-auto-e-furgoni.com, Doyouitaly-noleggio-facile.com

The timeline behind doyouitaly-noleggio-auto-e-furgoni.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 Gesmarket Internet Para Vender, S.L. v. Marco Trobone Case No. D2026-0652 1. The Parties The Complainant is Gesmarket Internet Para Vender, S.L., Spain, represented by PONS IP, Spain. The Respondent is Marco Trobone, Italy. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <doyouitaly-noleggio-auto-e-furgoni.com> and <doyouitaly-noleggio- facile.com> are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 16, 2026. On February 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 16, 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 (Whois Privacy Protection Foundation) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 18, 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 19, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 18, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 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 well-known Spanish company, that has been the leader within the car rental comparison website sector in since 2023. It manages well-known brands such as CarJet, DoYouSpain, and DoYouItaly. Specifically, DoYouItaly is an online search engine and comparison site specializing in car rentals in Italy. It compares the best deals from local and multinational companies in real time to offer the lowest prices and guarantee a fast and secure booking process at airports, stations, and city centers in Italy. The Complainant holds trademark registrations for DOYOUITALY in multiple jurisdictions, including the following: - European Union Trademark No. 013787271 DOYOUITALY (logo), registered on August 5, 2015, for services in classes 39, 41 and 43, and - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00913787271 DOYOUITALY (logo), registered on August 5, 2015, for services in classes 39, 41 and 43, and The Complainant is also the owner of the following domain names that contain “doyouitaly”, namely <doyouitaly.com> and <doyouitaly.it>. The disputed domain names <doyouitaly-noleggio-auto-e-furgoni.com> and <doyouitaly-noleggio- facile.com> were both registered on January 21, 2026. At the time of the filing of this Complaint both the disputed domain names resolved to active websites that featured the Complainant’s trademark DOYOUITALY and which promoted services that appeared to be identical to the services that the Complainant offers. 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 DOYOUITALY mark. The disputed domain names thus contain the mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic and descriptive terms “noleggio-auto-e-furgoni” and “noleggio-facile” respectively. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Both disputed domain names thus contain the Complainant’s distinctive DOYOUITALY mark, and it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights in the DOYOUITITALY mark when he registered the disputed domain names. The Respondent is attracting Internet users to websites under the disputed domain names that impersonates the Complainant and the Complainant’s websites and the Respondent is thus creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s DOYOUITALY mark for illicit financial gain. The Respondent’s website is misleading and displays false content, and includes hyperlinks to a different platform or website in order to the client to make payment. Further, the Complainant claims that it has been made aware that many customers have acquired the page 3 services of the Respondent, believing that they were actually renting the services offered by the Complainant through these channels. 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 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. Although the addition of other terms here, terms “noleggio-auto-e-furgoni” and “noleggio-facile” which translates to “car-and-van-rental” and “easy rental” in English respectively, 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 name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. page 4 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Given the circumstances of the case, including the evidence on record of the use of the Complainant’s trademark DOYOUITALY, and the distinctive nature of this mark, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. The disputed domain names have both been used to host websites, which clearly gave the Internet users the impression that the websites were websites of the Complainant or a website that was somehow connected to the Complainant, which was not the case. The Panel therefore finds that there can be no doubt that the disputed domain names have been used in bad faith to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website”. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Panel further notes that the Complainant has provided evidence of fraud. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the Complainant’s prospective customers. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Noting the above; that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark DOYOUITALY; that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions; and that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain names and considering all the facts and evidence of the case, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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 <doyouitaly-noleggio-auto-e-furgoni.com> and <doyouitaly-noleggio-facile.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Knud Wallberg/ Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: April 3, 2026

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