Vinitalyusa.com

The timeline behind vinitalyusa.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 Veronafiere S.p.A. v. Maurizio Muzzetta, Piazza Italia Case No. D2026-0668 1. The Parties The Complainant is Veronafiere S.p.A., Italy, represented by Milgrom Daskam & Ellis, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Maurizio Muzzetta, Piazza Italia, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vinitalyusa.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 17, 2026. On February 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 17, 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 (Fiere Italiane, LLC / Maurizio Muzzetta) 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 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on March 16, 2026. The Complainant submitted an unsolicited supplemental filing on March 19, 2026. The Respondent submitted a reply to the Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental filing on March 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 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 an Italian joint-stock company. The Complaint provides only limited details regarding its history and operations, although it notes that it is the owner of the VINITALY brand name and trademark, and uses the mark in connection with exhibition services. The Complainant is the owner of a variety of registered trademarks for the VINITALY mark, although it should be noted that some of the marks which it cites are held in the names of other persons. Notably, the Mexican VINITALY registered trademarks appear to be held by a private citizen based in Mexico. For present purposes, the Panel need only note that the Complainant appears to be the owner of the following trademark: Italian Registered Trademark Number 1034132 for the mark VINITALY, registered on January 19, 2007, in Class 42 (organization of exhibitions). This mark is held by “ENTE AUTONOMO PER LE FIERE DI VERONA” although a basic Google search by the Panel indicates that this is the Complainant’s predecessor entity, and the Panel therefore accepts the Complainant as the successor in interest. 1 The Complainant also claims unregistered trademark rights in the mark VINITALY.USA through use of the mark in commerce in the United States, and produces a variety of self-generated and independent evidence in support relating to the first two iterations of an event named “Vinitaly.USA” held in 2024, and again in 2025. For example, a press release claims the event to be the first and only “all Italy” wine trade fair in the United States, and that the 2024 event featured 230 producers, 1,650 wines, and more than 1,500 qualified trade attendees. A forthcoming event is planned for October 2026, and the Complainant provides an example of its related advance publicity. The Complainant notes that it has applied for corresponding registered trademarks in the United States, but these have not yet proceeded to grant. The disputed domain name was registered May 1, 2023. Email correspondence produced by the Respondent indicates that the disputed domain name has been used for a website in connection with the above events with the knowledge of the Complainant, this also being confirmed by the participation of the Complainant’s General Manager in a third party YouTube video dated September 25, 2025, which features the disputed domain name in the description. According to a Service Agreement (“the Agreement”) entered into between the Complainant and a United States company named Fiere Italiane, LLC (“Fiere”), on July 2, 2024, the Respondent Maurizio Muzzetta is the Manager of Fiere. The Agreement provides in its recitals that the Complainant intends to organize an exhibition event named “Vinitaly USA”, that the Complainant is “the owner of the “Vinitaly” brand and trademark, and that Fiere will work with the Complainant and provide services to it for the purpose of planning, organizing and implementing “Vinitaly USA”. It is also noted in the Agreement that Fiere is the owner of the “International Wine Expo” brand, and that, in 2023, International Wine Expo was held in cooperation with the Complainant. The Agreement was modified solely for the year 2025, but nothing turns on the modifications. By virtue of the Agreement, Fiere was appointed to plan and organize the Vinitaly USA event to be held annually in Chicago every year for the term of the contract, valid for four events from 2024 to 2027, with an option to renew for three more annual “editions”. Fiere was granted a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the “Vinitaly” brand name and VINITALY trademark solely in connection with the discharge of its obligations under the contract, and in terms of clause 3.6 of the Agreement, Fiere acknowledged that the 1 The Panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision, in particular to affirm or corroborate a party’s contention. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. page 3 brand name and trademark were the exclusive property of the Complainant and that nothing in the Agreement gave Fiere ownership rights, only the right to use these per the Agreement. The Complainant asserts that the Agreement has been terminated for various reasons that it is not necessary to repeat here. The Respondent disputes such termination and produces the Complainant’s letter of January 22, 2026, purporting to terminate the Agreement. Given such alleged termination, the Complainant argues that the license to use the “Vinitaly” brand name and trademark has also been terminated (pursuant to clause 3.5 of the Agreement), and adds that it has no record of giving any permission to the Respondent to register the disputed domain name, noting that this has been taken in the Respondent’s personal name and not in the name of Fiere. Fiere applied for two United States registered trademarks in the mark VINITALY.USA WORLD WINE BUSINESS on February 19, 2026. These marks have not yet proceeded to grant. As noted above, the Complainant filed the Amended Complaint on February 19, 2026. On February 26, 2026, the Complainant filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against Fiere, the Respondent Maurizio Muzzetta, and a third party. The action seeks injunctive relief and damages arising out of the Defendants’ alleged breaches of contract, unauthorized use of trademarks, deceptive trade practices, and unfair competition. The action contains claims in respect of the disputed domain name and seeks remedies under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act including orders transferring or cancelling the disputed domain name and orders to Internet Registries to transfer or disable the disputed domain name. The Agreement contains an arbitration clause in respect of disputes arising out of or related to it. Fiere filed a Demand for Arbitration to the body nominated in the Agreement on March 6, 2026, in respect of “Wrongful termination of services agreement for the conduct of Vinitaly.USA trade shows in the United States”. On March 16, 2026, the Court noted above granted the Complainant’s motion for a temporary restraining order on the basis that the Complainant has a right to early termination of the Agreement, leaving open the question as to whether the Complainant is or is not obligated to pay liquidated damages in consequence. The Court noted that the current record, and common sense, favor a finding that the use of VINITALY and VINITALY.USA by two competing, large-scale events a couple of weeks apart in October 2026, will result in confusion, whereby the public interest is served in avoiding that confusion, and that the harm to the Complainant in competing against its own trademarks is greater than the harm to Fiere, noting that Fiere may rely upon liquidated damages in due course if the early termination is found to not be a consequence of a breach. The Court therefore ordered that through March 31, 2026, the Defendants in the case shall cease to use in commerce, directly or indirectly, VINITALY and VINITALY.USA. 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 is the owner of the VINITALY registered trademark and of the VINITALY.USA unregistered trademark, and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to each of these. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the rights which were possessed by Fiere, the Respondent’s company, derive from the Agreement, which has been terminated, and there was no explicit authorization in the Agreement for the Respondent to create a domain name using the Complainant’s VINITALY mark The Complainant adds that to the extent that Fiere was granted rights to create the disputed domain name, such use should have been page 4 on behalf of the Complainant in accordance with the Agreement, and the Complainant should have been listed as the registrant, noting that in any event, Fiere did not register the disputed domain name, which was registered by the Respondent in its personal name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith by doing so in its own name, and not in the name of the Complainant, noting that this disrupts the Complainant’s business, and that the Respondent does not operate any legitimate business that is commonly known by such name. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to advertise and sell the Complainant’s services under the VINITALY mark, which constitutes trademark infringement as the license under the Agreement has been terminated. The Complainant submits that the Respondent was never authorized in its individual capacity to use the Complainant’s mark, and that any such use is outside the terms of the license, adding that the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. B. Respondent 2 The Respondent contends that the dispute is beyond the scope of the Policy, noting that it has owned the disputed domain name since May 1, 2023, and has applied for several corresponding trademarks in the United States. The Respondent notes that it has built the Vinitaly USA digital ecosystem since acquiring the disputed domain name in 2023, and that the disputed domain name and associated platform were conceived, financed and operated by the Respondent, adding that the Complainant has interacted with this yet never demanded a transfer of the disputed domain name or objected to the Respondent’s management of such digital infrastructure until now. The Respondent narrates the terms of the alleged termination of the Agreement, providing alternative reasons therefor, noting that the Complainant has commenced court action and that the Respondent has commenced an arbitration under the Agreement. The Respondent indicates that the Panel should therefore stay or terminate the administrative proceeding. The Respondent submits that the facts of the case do not suggest abusive targeting of a mark but a broader conflict over control of project assets constituting a contractual dispute falling beyond the ambit of the Policy. The Respondent states that when the Parties began working together in 2023, the Respondent offered to use the disputed domain name as a “dedicated online” [sic] to centralize the Parties’ United States event communications under a single, coherent digital identity. The Respondent states that after the alleged termination it engaged in negotiations with the Complainant but that the Complainant required a transfer of the disputed domain name and social media accounts as a precondition to continuing such negotiations, to which the Respondent was not prepared to agree. The Respondent argues that the present proceedings are inextricably linked to the Agreement, that the dispute belongs before the arbitral tribunal, and that the demand for transfer of the disputed domain name cannot be adjudicated until it is determined that the purported termination of the Agreement is valid and effective. The Respondent submits that the prolonged course of performance of the Agreement, spanning nearly three years, demonstrates that the Respondent’s registration and operation of the disputed domain name were conducted openly, with the Complainant’s knowledge and participation, whereby such conduct is incompatible with any allegation that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Respondent argues that the Complainant’s position is undermined by the fact that it has used promotional and operational materials generated by the Respondent in connection with the Complainant’s trademark applications. The Respondent’s position is that the Agreement covers the use of the VINITALY mark but does not reference or regulate a separate designation identified as “Vinitaly.USA.” 2 The Panel notes that the Response was filed by Fiere Italiane, LLC of which the Registrar-confirmed Respondent Maurizio Muzzetta is the Manager, whereas the Response caption refers to both Fiere Italiane LLC and Maurizio Muzzetta. page 5 The Respondent contends that panels under the Policy have consistently recognized that where a domain name is registered and used within an authorized or contract-based commercial relationship, and the dispute turns on termination, ownership allocation, or other contested contractual rights, the matter is not a paradigmatic cybersquatting case and is more appropriately resolved in court or arbitration, adding that its legitimate interests are further confirmed by its multi-year performance under the Agreement. The Respondent submits that the Complainant must prove that bad faith exists at the time of registration, whereby a subsequent contractual dispute cannot retroactively transform a good faith registration into a bad faith registration. The Respondent argues that its registration of the disputed domain name, followed by its building of the digital ecosystem, is the opposite of opportunistic cybersquatting, noting that the Policy was not designed to reallocate digital assets between former commercial partners engaged in a bona fide business relationship. The Respondent contests the Complainant’s case on bad faith use based upon the fact that it contests the purported termination of the Agreement. The Respondent concludes that it has not engaged in any actions quintessentially associated with the typical circumstances of bad faith associated with proceedings under the Policy. C. Complainant’s Supplemental Filing The Complainant contends that the Court order of March 16, 2026, confirms that the Agreement was validly terminated. The Complainant goes on to assert that the Respondent has disabled the website associated with the disputed domain name from public view, and that by doing so, the Respondent is causing present harm to the Complainant and its business, which increases the need to resolve the dispute in a timely manner. The Complainant concludes that the proper forum is an administrative proceeding under the UDRP, and that the current proceeding should not be terminated. D. Respondent’s Supplemental Filing The Respondent asserts that following receipt of the Court order, it took immediate steps to comply, by adopting the most conservative approach to avoid any risk of unauthorized commercial use of the VINITALY and VINITALY.USA marks, but that this should not be construed as evidence of bad faith or lack of legitimate interest. The Respondent adds that the Complainant’s assertions of alleged harm are outside the scope of the Policy. The Respondent notes that the Parties remain active in the Court action, with a further hearing scheduled for April 10, 2026. The Respondent argues that the Complainant’s submission that the Court proceedings will not resolve matters in a timely manner is speculative and unsupported. The Respondent states that any attempt by the Complainant to advance broader arguments in response to the Respondent’s prior submissions, including regarding the timing and scope of parallel proceedings, exceed the limited purpose of a supplemental filing and should be disregarded. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Effect of Court Proceedings Paragraph 18 of the Rules contemplates the fact that legal proceedings in respect of a domain name dispute that is the subject of the Complaint may be initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding, and that such administrative proceeding may be terminated or suspended in consequence, or the Panel may proceed to a decision, in its discretion. Here, there is ongoing litigation between the Parties, in connection with which the Complainant seeks various remedies under national law. Nevertheless, panels generally issue a UDRP decision on the merits even in an overlapping court-UDRP proceeding scenario where, notwithstanding the fact that a UDRP decision would not be binding on the court, the relative expediency of the UDRP versus courts is seen as a benefit to the parties. Panel reluctance to terminate a UDRP case on this basis often also takes account of, and respects, the potential for a court action to address causes of action separate from that being addressed in the UDRP proceeding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.14.2. page 6 The Complainant requests the Panel to proceed to a Decision, while the Respondent requests that the case be terminated in terms of paragraph 18 of the Rules, referencing Foris Limited v. Edmunds Gaidis, Domdevelo OU, WIPO Case No. D2024-4704. In that case, the panel noted that the specific domain name dispute between the parties was far better suited to be handled before the competent United States courts on the basis that the panel was presented with a complex dispute both on a procedural and on a substantive level, which included a number of sophisticated trademark matters. That is not the case here. While there is a wider trademark dispute (and a contractual dispute over the Agreement) ongoing between the Parties, the issue surrounding the registration of the disputed domain name at least as far as the Policy is concerned appears to the Panel to be relatively straightforward based on the present record, as will be seen from the third element discussion below. The Panel’s assessment results in denial of the Complaint, which in effect leaves matters open to the Court to resolve the dispute over the disputed domain name and other matters as it sees fit. Although the Complainant asserts that the Policy is comparatively expedient, it must not be overlooked that the Complainant has already availed itself of the Court’s power to grant interim remedies, and indeed one such determination was already made by the Court before this Panel was even appointed. It is also noted that the case will call again in Court soon, and the Panel sees no reason why the Parties could not request further interim remedies. Consequently, the Panel will proceed to a Decision on the present record and adds that it does not address this to any other forum that is or may be seized of those matters described in this administrative proceeding, or in the said court action or in the said arbitration. 6.2. Preliminary Issue: Scope of the Policy Depending on the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and irrespective of whether the parties may also be engaged in court litigation, in some instances (e.g., complex business or contractual disputes) panels have tended to deny the case not on the UDRP merits but on the narrow grounds that the dispute between the parties exceeds the relatively limited “cybersquatting” scope of the UDRP, and would be more appropriately addressed by a court of competent jurisdiction. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.14.6. Here, the Respondent asserts that the dispute falls outside the narrow scope of the Policy and squarely within the Parties’ agreed contractual and arbitral framework, noting that both a court action and an arbitration have commenced. The Respondent adds that the case goes beyond alleged cybersquatting, in that it concerns a complex commercial and trademark disagreement arising from the Agreement. By contrast, in its Supplemental Filing, the Complainant notes that in light of the present harm to the Complainant, it considers that the proper forum to resolve this dispute timely is an administrative proceeding under the UDRP. As discussed in detail below, both of the Parties appear to focus upon the Agreement and its purported termination, whereas the disputed domain name was registered over a year before the Agreement was entered into. In light of this, the Panel considers that it can see its way to reaching a Decision on the merits here within the framework of the Policy, and will proceed to do so. That Decision should not interfere in any way with the jurisdiction either of the Court or the arbitral tribunal. 6.3. Preliminary Issue: Parties’ Supplemental Filings Paragraph 12 of the Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case. Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.6. Panels have sole discretion, under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, whether to accept an unsolicited supplemental filing from either party, bearing in mind the need for procedural efficiency, and the obligation to treat each party with equality and ensure that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case. The party page 7 submitting a supplemental filing would normally need to show its relevance to the case and explain why it was unable to provide that information in the complaint or response (for example, owing to some exceptional circumstance). As noted above, the Complainant filed an unsolicited Supplemental Filing on March 19, 2026, and the Respondent replied to this on March 20, 2026. The Complainant’s filing provided an update for the Panel regarding the interim relief sought by the Complainant from the United States Court. The Respondent’s filing replied to the Complainant’s contentions arising therefrom. These are effectively new matters that could not have been addressed by the Parties in their earlier filings, and the Panel is therefore content to admit the Parties’ Supplemental Filings. 6.4. Substantive Issues 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. In light of the finding above, it is unnecessary to determine whether the Complainant has established unregistered trademark or service mark rights for the purposes of this element of the Policy. Given the Panel’s findings under the third element, this issue is also moot regarding the second and third elements. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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. Although the addition of other terms, here, “usa”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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 The requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are conjunctive. A consequence of this is that failure on the part of a complainant to demonstrate one element of the Policy will result in failure of the complaint in its entirety. Accordingly, in light of the Panel’s findings in connection with the third element assessment under the Policy, it is not necessary for the Panel to address the issue of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 notes that the Parties are known to each other and have a past history of commercial cooperation, although their relationship has evidently deteriorated recently. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 1, 2023. This is some considerable time before the Complainant and Fiere entered into the Agreement. The Complainant’s VINITALY trademarks were in force at that time, although the Complainant’s claim to unregistered trademark rights arising from use of page 8 VINITALY.USA in commerce in the United States is based on an apparently later date of first use described as “at least October 20, 2024” in the Complaint. The Complainant provides only very limited information about the background to the Parties’ relationship, and, crucially, none at all surrounding the particular point at which the disputed domain name was registered in 2023. The only information that the Panel has on this topic is that the Agreement itself narrates that the Parties worked on the International Wine Expo together in that year. The reason that what happened around May 2023 is key to the Panel’s finding on this element is that, under the Policy, the Complainant must prove both that the Respondent registered and that it uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. This is a conjunctive requirement, whereby failure to prove that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith would cause the Complaint to fail. As the registration date of the disputed domain name occurred many months before the Agreement was entered into, the fact of the Agreement itself and its terms are of limited assistance to the Panel in determining whether the Respondent had a good faith or bad faith motive when it registered the disputed domain name. Had the Agreement contained an acknowledgement on Fiere’s part that any intellectual property including domain names previously created in connection with Vinitaly.USA were the property of the Complainant and were to be transferred to it, it would still have been challenging for the Complainant to establish registration in bad faith, as this would have required the Panel to project the Respondent’s likely motivation back over a period of more than a year. As matters stand, however, although Fiere might have acknowledged in July 2024 that the Complainant was the owner of the VINITALY mark and brand name, and received a license thereof at that time per the Agreement, this does not demonstrate on the balance of probabilities and on the present record that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in May 2023. A range of possible motivations might be attributed to the Respondent at the point of registration, and not all of these would necessarily be in bad faith and/or trademark abusive. For example, the Respondent may simply have wanted to secure as swiftly as possible the disputed domain name for the Parties’ proposed joint venture when the concept was first mooted (by whom, and when, or under what conditions, the Panel does not know) and the Respondent’s personal account with the Registrar was conveniently to hand. Likewise, the Respondent may have intentionally taken the disputed domain name in its personal name specifically because it did not know at the time what corporate vehicle would be used to run the events and/or hold the related intellectual property, considering that this might have been the Respondent’s company, the Complainant’s company, or a joint entity, particularly given the Parties’ joint collaboration in International Wine Expo. On the other hand, the possibility that the Respondent took the disputed domain name into its own name in bad faith, for example with a view to being able to exercise leverage over the Complainant nearly three years later after the Parties had fallen out, seems much less likely to the Panel, particularly as the Parties went on to complete two successful events together in 2024 and 2025, and there is no evidence that the Respondent would have had any reason to believe in 2023 that its relations with the Complainant would deteriorate in the manner that they have. While it cannot be ignored that the terms of the Agreement put the Respondent on notice no later than July 2024 regarding the Complainant’s intellectual property rights, specifically acknowledged therein by the Respondent’s company Fiere, this would not by itself retroactively convert what might have been a good faith registration 14 months earlier into a bad faith registration. Any finding that the Agreement has been validly terminated likewise has no impact upon whether the disputed domain name was registered in good or bad faith in terms of the Policy. In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, and accordingly the question of use in bad faith is moot. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. page 9 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Andrew D. S. Lothian/ Andrew D. S. Lothian Sole Panelist Date: April 7, 2026

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