Pradadupes.com, Pradareplicas.com

The timeline behind pradadupes.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 Prada S.A. v. ai zhang Case No. D2026-1439 1. The Parties The Complainant is Prada S.A., Luxembourg, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is ai zhang, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <pradadupes.com> and <pradareplicas.com> are registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2026. On April 7, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On April 8, 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 Domain Protection Services, Inc.) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 10, 206, 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 April 10, 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 April 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 4, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 5, 2026. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on May 18, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a recognized Italian luxury fashion company, renowned for its sophisticated style and high-end products. Established in 1913 by Mario Prada, initially focused on leather goods, including handbags and travel accessories. Through the years, the Complainant contends that it evolved into a global symbol of luxury, offering a wide range of products such as ready-to-wear clothing, shoes, perfumes, and fashion accessories, among others. The Complainant operates in 70 countries with 17,900 employees approximately. The Complainant has registered over 260 domain names consisting of or comprising the trademark PRADA under several different Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”), including, inter alia, <prada.com>, registered on June 9, 1997. The Complainant owns the trademark PRADA, in multiple jurisdictions, including as follows: - Italian Trademark, for PRADA (word mark), Reg. No. 362017000069322, registered on July 8, 1978, in International Class (“IC”)4 ; and duly renewed. - European Union Trade Mark for PRADA (word mark), Reg. No. 271163, registered on November 8, 2000, in ICs 9, 16, and 21; and duly renewed. - Chinese Trademark for PRADA (word mark), Reg. No. 1263052, registered on April 14, 1999, in IC 18, and duly renewed. The disputed domain names <pradadupes.com> and <pradareplicas.com> were registered on January 22, 2026, and June 9, 2025, respectively. The disputed domain name <pradadupes.com> redirects to “www.pradareplicas.com”. The website operating under the disputed domain name <pradareplicas.com> appears to be an e-commerce platform that openly and explicitly markets and sells non authorized goods bearing the PRADA trademark. The site identifies itself as “Prada Replicas” and describes its purpose as offering “the best quality replicas for Prada available here with the best prices,” including designer leather bags, purses, and shoulder bags. 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. 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 page 3 the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names. 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 like “replicas” or “dupes” 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 names 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 categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Where counterfeits are involved, no disclosure on the related website (or indeed the use of a disclaiming term in the domain name itself) that such infringing goods are “replicas”, “reproductions”, etc. would cure the illegal behavior. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The composition of the disputed domain names, comprising the Complainant’s trademark PRADA in its entirety and the addition of the terms “replicas” and “dupes”, do not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. 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 The Respondent registered two disputed domain names using the well know trademark PRADA with the addition of the terms “replicas” or “dupes”. The disputed domain name <pradareplicas.com> incorporates the PRADA mark in its entirety, combined with the descriptive term “replicas,“ which unambiguously signals that the site is dedicated to the sale of unauthorized imitations of PRADA-branded products. The addition of “replica” to a well known trademark in the disputed domain name is used to suggest that the Respondent's website offers visitors access to counterfeit products (Richemont International SA. v. Janice Liburs, WIPO Case No. D2014-0688). The same can be said of the term “dupes” since it means a cheap consumer product intended to imitate a more expensive product, and an informal term for a duplicate or counterfeit 1 The website's content makes clear that the Respondent is engaged in the deliberate commercial exploitation of the PRADA trademark to attract Internet users seeking PRADA products and to divert them to a competing, unauthorized sales platform. The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, as the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the PRADA mark and is using it solely to mislead consumers and profit from the goodwill associated with the Complainant's well-known brand. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for passing off, counterfeit goods, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under 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 names <pradadupes.com> and <pradareplicas.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: June 1, 2026. 1 See Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dupe”.

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