Thelavazzacafe.com

The timeline behind thelavazzacafe.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 Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. v. Lily Miller Case No. D2026-0675 1. The Parties The Complainant is Luigi Lavazza S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is Lily Miller, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <thelavazzacafe.com> is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (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 19, 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 (Not Disclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 19, 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 the amendment to the Complaint on February 25, 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 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for the Response was March 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Zeynep Yasaman as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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, Luigi Lavazza S.p.A., is a company incorporated under Italian law and headquartered in Turin, Italy. Founded in 1895 by Luigi Lavazza, the Complainant is one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of coffee and coffee products. With more than 5,500 employees worldwide, direct subsidiaries, and a wide distribution network, the Complainant today operates in over 140 countries. The Complainant’s product range encompasses a broad selection of espresso blends, capsules, coffee machines, and accessories. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark LAVAZZA registered in various jurisdictions, including: - European Union trademark LAVAZZA, registration no.000317057, registered on May 25, 1998, in classes 21, 30 and 42. - International trademark LAVAZZA, registration no. 317174, registered on July 18, 1966, in classes 29, 30, and 31. - International trademark LAVAZZA, registration no. 1186133, registered on July 29, 2013, in classes 7 and 11. - United States trademark LAVAZZA, registration no. 1201336, registered on July 13, 1982, in class 30. - United States trademark LAVAZZA, registration no. 6122666, registered on August 11, 2020, in classes 7, 16, and 21. The Complainant has registered hundreds of domain names containing its trademark LAVAZZA, including <lavazza.com> (registered on May 19, 1996) and <lavazzausa.com> (registered on December 21, 1998), through which it promotes its brand and sells its coffee products worldwide, including in the United States. The disputed domain name <thelavazzacafe.com> was registered on December 28, 2025, and resolves to an e-commerce website bearing the homepage title “Official Website - Lavazza”. The homepage prominently displays the designation “Lavazza” and contains product categories such as “Shop,” “Accessories,” “Capsules and pods,” “Coffee,” and “Kit”. The website offers a wide range of LAVAZZA- branded products for sale, including coffee blends, capsules and pods, coffee machines, and accessories, at discounted prices shown in U.S. dollars. The website also contains standard commercial website sections such as “About us,” “Refund returns,” and “Privacy policy.” “About Us” page displays such a message: “We’re here for the love of a great cup. We believe your daily coffee should be the best part of your morning—a moment of quiet ritual or shared connection, never a compromise. That’s why we source, roast, and craft our coffee to deliver a consistently exceptional experience, from bean to brew. Our journey starts with relationships. We partner directly with growers who share our commitment to quality and care, selecting only the finest specialty beans. Then, our craft takes over. In our small-batch roastery, we carefully develop each bean’s unique character, balancing origin flavors with the perfect roast profile to create a rich, smooth, and complex cup every time. Whether you crave a bright, vibrant single-origin or a perfectly balanced house blend, we provide the quality beans and precise grinds you need to make coffee worth savoring. This is coffee done right. Pour a cup, and taste the difference”. On January 22, 2026, the Complainant’s representative submitted a data disclosure request to the Registrar. No reply was received. On the same date, a cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Respondent at the privacy email address indicated in the WhoIs records, requesting the immediate cessation of use and transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant free of charge. A reminder was sent on January 26, 2026. No reply was received from the Respondent. On January 22, 2026, an abuse report was also filed with the Registrar, followed by a reminder on January 26, 2026, with no response received. On January 26, 2026, a cease-and-desist letter was additionally sent to the hosting provider of the website, page 3 requesting deactivation; no reply was received from the hosting provider either. 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 the disputed domain name <thelavazzacafe.com> is confusingly similar to its registered and well-known trademark LAVAZZA, as it incorporates the entirety of the mark, with the additions of the generic/descriptive terms “the” and “cafe” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” none of which suffice to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee, an authorized agent of the Complainant or in any other way authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark LAVAZZA and register the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not made any bona fide use of it prior to the dispute. To the contrary, the Respondent has redirected the disputed domain name to a website that displays the Complainant’s LAVAZZA trademark and product visuals and offers purported LAVAZZA-branded products for sale at discounted prices without any disclaimer of non-affiliation. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has failed to satisfy the conditions established by the “Oki Data test” for legitimate reseller use and that the website constitutes impersonation/passing off of the Complainant, which can never confer rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. In addition, the disputed domain name, incorporating the well-known trademark LAVAZZA with the addition of the terms “the” and “café”, which refers to the Complainant’s core business, carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. With respect to bad faith registration and use, the Complainant contends that the LAVAZZA trademark is globally famous and well-known and has been in continuous commercial use since 1895. Given this widespread fame, the Respondent could not have been unaware of the LAVAZZA mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. This is confirmed by the use of the LAVAZZA trademark and product imagery on the Respondent’s website. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a commercial website publishing the Complainant’s trademark and product visuals and offering for sale LAVAZZA coffee products, coffee machines and accessories, without providing any disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, as it intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also relies on the Respondent’s failure to respond to the cease-and-desist letter as additional evidence of bad faith. 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). page 4 Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1). In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated rights in the trademark LAVAZZA through numerous registered trademarks in multiple jurisdictions, including the European Union, the United States, and via international registrations. The earliest of these registrations dates to 1966 (International Registration No. 317174), and rights in respect of the United States market are evidenced by registrations dating to 1982 (U.S. Registration No. 1201336). Accordingly, the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. The disputed domain name <thelavazzacafe.com> incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s registered trademark LAVAZZA. Accordingly, the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name includes two additional terms alongside the LAVAZZA mark: the definite article “the” and the word “cafe.” It is well established by panels applying the Policy that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional terms may, however, bear on the assessment of the second and third elements (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8). Similarly, the applicable gTLD in a domain name (e.g., “.com”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such, is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. Donnie Lewis, WIPO Case No. D2017- 0580). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. 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 notes that there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant has established that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized or licensed to use the trademark LAVAZZA or register the disputed domain name. Where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second- or top-level), UDRP panels have largely held that such a composition cannot constitute fair use if it page 5 effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1). Moreover, UDRP panels do not consider bona fide offering of goods or services or a fair use if a respondent is hosting a website to provide products in direct competition with the Complainant (see, Xiaomi, Inc. v. Eddie Zheng, Rc Technology Ltd; David Riverol, Rc Technology Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2018-2403). In this regard, the Panel considers that the composition of the disputed domain name, which entirely incorporates the Complainant’s trademark LAVAZZA together with the terms “the” and “cafe” – the Complainant’s core business - combined with the fact that the Complainant’s branded products are offered for sale on the associated website, creates the impression of an affiliation with the Complainant. Where a respondent is re-selling a complainant’s products or providing services relating to them, then the applicable criteria for determining whether a respondent can assert a right or legitimate interest in a domain name that incorporates the complainant’s trademark are set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. As outlined in the “Oki Data test”, the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services; (iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark. In the present case, the Panel was unable to determine whether the website to which the disputed domain name resolves was in fact offering the Complainant’s genuine products for sale. However, even assuming that this was the case, the Respondent’s use would still not satisfy the requirements for bona fide reseller use under the Oki Data test. The website contains no disclosure as to the nature of the relationship between the Complainant, as trademark owner, and the Respondent, as the holder of the disputed domain name. Rather, it prominently displays the LAVAZZA trademark and product images, bears the title “Official Website - Lavazza,” and offers what purport to be LAVAZZA products at discounted prices. The website contains no disclaimer of non-affiliation and does not identify its actual operator. In the Panel’s view, such use is intended to convey the misleading impression that the website is operated by, affiliated with, or authorized by the Complainant, and does not meet the requirements for bona fide reseller use established in the Oki Data test. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including impersonation or passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1). In the Panel views, the Respondent’s website – which mimics an official Lavazza commercial website, uses the LAVAZZA name, logo, and product images without authorization, and does not disclose its actual identity – constitutes such impersonation. 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). In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademark LAVAZZA has been in continuous and substantial commercial use since 1895 and has achieved international fame. The Complainant operates in over 140 countries, and its trademark enjoys particularly high recognition in the coffee industry worldwide. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 28, 2025, well over a century after the Complainant’s first use of the LAVAZZA mark. In this regard, the Panel considers that, page 6 given the Complainant’s long-standing use of its LAVAZZA trademark and its consequent worldwide recognition, the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, which consists of the Complainant’s trademark combined with an additional term that describes the goods associated with that trademark. It has been established in previous UDRP decisions that the registration of a domain name incorporating a widely-recognized or well- known trademark by a third party who has no connection with the trademark is a clear indication of bad faith (see Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2006-0435; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163). Moreover, it has been held in previous UDRP cases that a respondent’s knowledge of a complainant’s trademark rights, and its bad faith registration of the disputed domain name, may be inferred when the domain name merely consists of the complainant’s trademark and a term “clearly related” to the complainant’s products (GA Modefine S.A. v. Thomas Casey, WIPO Case No. D2009-0826). In light of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s LAVAZZA trademark at the time of registration and that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Moreover, considering the facts that the disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website that prominently displays the LAVAZZA logo and trademark without authorization, bears the homepage title “Official Website – Lavazza,” expressly presenting itself as the Complainant’s own website or an official Lavazza commercial channel, offers a broad range of purported LAVAZZA-branded coffee products, machines, and accessories for sale with low prices, contains no disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant and does not identify the actual operator of the website, the Panel considers it possible that Internet users may be misled into believing that the website is an official platform operated by the Complainant for the sale of its discounted products. In this regard, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website. The Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case – including the worldwide fame of the LAVAZZA trademark, the Respondent’s appropriation of the entirety of the LAVAZZA mark in the disputed domain name, the addition of the term “cafe” which directly references the Complainant’s coffee business, the impersonating use of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent’s failure to respond to any communications from the Complainant or to these proceedings – the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name was both registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 name <thelavazzacafe.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Zeynep Yasaman/ Zeynep Yasaman Sole Panelist Date: April 7, 2026

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