Shopfineryfragrance.shop

The timeline behind shopfineryfragrance.shop

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 Maesa LLC v. faith fei Case No. D2026-1876 1. The Parties The Complainant is Maesa LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Dorf Nelson & Zauderer LLP, United States. The Respondent is faith fei, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <shopfineryfragrance.shop> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2026. On May 1, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 4, 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 (Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 23, 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 May 26, 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 May 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 16, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 17, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on June 22, 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, a Delaware limited liability company, is an international beauty incubator, having spent significant resources developing and launching the FINE’RY brand of perfume products. The Complainant currently sells its perfume products to Target retail stores and website, as well as to Amazon and TikTok. On or around October 27, 2022, the Complainant began offering perfumes and body mists under its FINE’RY trademark exclusively through Target retail stores. Since its launch, the Complainant’s brand expanded distribution channels, and the brand received continuous press coverage from numerous outlets including Real Simple, Drug Store News, Instyle, and Glamour, among others. The Complainant owns the following valid and enforceable registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”): FINE’RY, United States Registration No. 7,147,298, registered on August 22, 2023, in International Class 3; FINE’RY, United States Registration No. 7,860,249, registered on July 8, 2025, in International Class 4; and FINE’RY, United States Registration No. 8,215,040, registered on April 14, 2026, in International Class 3. In addition, the Complainant owns an International trademark for FINE’RY, International Registration No. 1795788, registered on April 24, 2024 (designating various jurisdictions). The Complainant also owns several pending trademark applications that contain the term FINE’RY alone or in combination with one or more other words for which registration certificates as well as notices of allowance have issued. The foregoing registered and pending trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “FINE’RY Mark”. The Complainant owns the domain name <fineryfragrance.com>, which resolves to its official website at “www.fineryfragrance.com” and which displays and promotes the sale of its perfumery. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 19, 2026, and redirects to a website that impersonates or attempts to pass off as the Complainant’s. The Respondent’s website has a similar look and feel as the website of the Complainant, displays the Complainant’s perfumes and offers those perfumes under the Complainant’s FINE’RY Mark and repeatedly implies that the Respondent is the Complainant or is affiliated with the Complainant. For example, the Respondent divides its website into sections such as “Our Story”, “Our Collection”, and “Our Mission”. Use of such language demonstrates the Respondent’s intent to create the impression of an affiliation with the Complainant if not an affirmative attempt to pass off the website as the Complainant’s own website. 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 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FINE’RY Mark because the Disputed Domain Name contains the FINE’RY Mark in its entirety, preceded by the term “shop”, followed by the term “fragrance”, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; and - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, among other things, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name page 3 containing the FINE’RY Mark, and the Respondent has never commonly been known by the Disputed Domain Name; and - the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is used in bad faith because, among other things, the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate the Complainant and pass off its website, or to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant for the purpose of deceiving unsuspecting consumers. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)): (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold inquiry: a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that in the present case, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FINE’RY Mark as explained below. 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. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the FINE’RY Mark based on its use as well as its registered trademarks for the FINE’RY Mark through the USPTO and jurisdictions worldwide. The consensus view of panels is that “[w]here 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”. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the FINE’RY Mark. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the FINE’RY Mark in its entirety, albeit without the apostrophe, preceded by the term “shop”, followed by the term “fragrance”, and then followed by the gTLD “.shop”. The test for confusing similarity involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Here, the FINE’RY Mark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. As stated in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.1, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive . . . or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. Thus, the addition of the terms “shop” and “fragrance” to the page 4 Complainant’s FINE’RY Mark in the Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See e.g., Allianz Global Investors of America, L.P. and Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO) v. Bingo-Bongo, WIPO Case No. D2011-0795; and Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Wei-Chun Hsia, WIPO Case No. D2008-0923. This is true regardless of the omission of the apostrophe, which is not sufficient to avoid a finding of likelihood of confusion. See L’Oréal v. Li Hai Liu, WIPO Case No. D2016-0631 (likelihood of confusion between L’Oreal trademark and domain name <lorealcosmetics.club>, despite omission of apostrophe). Finally, the addition of a gTLD such as “.shop” in a domain name is a technical requirement. As such, it is well established that a gTLD may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva, WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Thus, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FINE’RY Mark. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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. In this case, given the facts as set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Respondent has not submitted any arguments or evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Furthermore, and based on the available record, the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its FINE’RY Mark. Nor does the Complainant have any type of business relationship with the Respondent. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any similar name, nor any evidence that the Respondent was using or making demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Policy, paragraph 4(c). The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website prominently displaying the FINE’RY Mark, and thus, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. When Internet users arrive at the Respondent’s website, they will find a site in which the Respondent attempts to pass off as the Complainant, purportedly offering perfumery to customers, which goods compete with that offered by the Complainant on its official website. The Panel thus determines that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name but rather is using the Disputed Domain Name for commercial gain with the intent to mislead the Complainant’s customers into believing that they had arrived at the Complainant’s website. The Panel also determines that the use of the Disputed Domain Name to pass off as the Complainant to offer competing or potentially nonauthentic goods does not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1 (“Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.”). Screenshots of the resolving website of the Disputed Domain Name were submitted by the Complainant in Annexes to the Complaint to demonstrate the Respondent’s passing off of the Complainant’s website and FINE’RY Mark. page 5 In this case, the Respondent’s website has a similar look and feel to that of the Complainant, plus the Respondent, without authorization, prominently displays the FINE’RY Mark and identical images of the Complainant’s products on its website, including the Complainant’s own photographs of the FINE’RY fragrances, thus demonstrating that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Respondent also uses without authorization several of the Complainant’s other product names of fragrances with pending trademarks on its website and displays them prominently and repeatedly. Some of the Complainant’s other fragrance names include “Born to Empress”, “Flower Bed”, “Madame”, and “Magnetic Candy”, among others. In sum, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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. The Panel finds that based on the record the Complainant has demonstrated the existence of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a disputed 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. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitute bad faith under the Policy due to the Respondent’s copying of the Complainant’s website to offer competing or purportedly nonauthentic goods to unwitting customers. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the FINE’RY Mark in its entirety, resolving to a website that displays the Complainant’s FINE’RY Mark prominently throughout. Therefore, it strains credulity to believe that the Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its FINE’RY Mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. See Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763 (“a finding of bad faith may be made where the respondent ‘knew or should have known’ of the registration and/or use of the trademark prior to registering the domain name”). In this regard, the fact that the Respondent featured the FINE’RY Mark on its website also indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark. In sum, the Panel finds that the Respondent had the Complainant’s FINE’RY Mark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name, another indication of bad faith. Moreover, the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s website for commercial gain demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Here, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name for a commercial website featuring the FINE’RY Mark and the Complainant’s products indicates that such registration and use had been done for the specific purpose of trading upon and targeting the reputation, name, mark, and goodwill of the Complainant. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and “Madonna.com”, WIPO Case No. D2000-0847 (“[t]he only plausible explanation for Respondent’s actions appears to be an intentional effort to trade upon the fame of Complainant’s name and mark for commercial gain”). page 6 Finally, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name was a bad faith attempt to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name was also likely to confuse Internet users into incorrectly believing that the Respondent was authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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 <shopfineryfragrance.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Lynda M. Braun/ Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: July 6, 2026

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