Carvelasouthafrica.com

The timeline behind carvelasouthafrica.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 A & D Spitz (Pty) Limited v. 黄保传 (Huang BaoZhuan) Case No. D2026-1971 1. The Parties Complainant is A & D Spitz (Pty) Limited, South Africa, represented by Adams & Adams, South Africa. Respondent is 黄保传 (Huang BaoZhuan), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carvelasouthafrica.com> is registered with Guizhou Zhongyu Zhike Network Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2026. On May 7, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 14, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on the same day, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on May 18, 2026. On May 14, 2026, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On May 18, 2026, Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not submit any comment on Complainant’s submission. 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 Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, page 2 paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 9, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 18, 2026. The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on June 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 A. Complainant Complainant, A & D Spitz (Pty) Limited, is a company incorporated in South Africa. Complainant owns and operates the well-known CARVELA brand in connection with footwear, accessories and related fashion products. The CARVELA mark has been used extensively in South Africa for many years. Complainant is the owner of CARVELA trademarks in several jurisdictions, including the South African trademark registered on July 7, 1993 (the South African Trademark number 1990/11117), and the South African trademark registered on February 1, 2006 (the South African Trademark number 2001/16486). The CARVELA mark has become well recognised in South Africa through extensive commercial use and promotion. CARVELA products are promoted online, through Complainant’s website located at “www.spitz.co.za”. B. Respondent Respondent is 黄保传 (Huang BaoZhuan), reportedly located in China. The disputed domain name was registered on April 14, 2026. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name previously resolved to an active website purporting to offer CARVELA-branded footwear and accessories. The website attempted to imitate Complainant’s official website at “www.spitz.co.za” by reproducing Complainant’s CARVELA trademark, adopting a similar overall layout and appearance, and targeting South African consumers by displaying prices in South African Rand (ZAR). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARVELA trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the CARVELA trademark in its entirety. The addition of “southafrica” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trademark and instead reinforces the misleading impression that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant’s South African business. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. From the evidence presented on the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between Complainant and Respondent to the effect that the language of the proceeding should be English. Complainant filed initially its Complaint and amended Complaint in English, and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding for the following main reasons: (a) the website associated with the disputed domain name is entirely in English, indicating that Respondent is familiar with, and capable of using, the English language; (b) the disputed domain name itself consists entirely of Latin characters and incorporates the country name “South Africa”, rather than Chinese script; (c) the website specifically targets South African consumers by offering products in South African Rand (“ZAR”), indicating that the intended audience is English-speaking consumers in South Africa; (d) South Africa has 12 official languages, of which Chinese is not one. English, on the other hand, is widely recognised as the principal language of government, commerce and media in South Africa. Complainant submits that it does not understand Chinese; and (e) requiring Complainant to translate the Complaint and supporting evidence into Chinese would result in unnecessary delay and substantial additional expense, whereas conducting the proceeding in English would not unfairly prejudice Respondent. Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). On the record, Respondent appears to be located in China and thus presumably not a native English speaker, but considering the following aspects, the Panel has decided that the language of the proceeding shall be English: (a) the disputed domain name is registered in Latin characters rather than Chinese script; (b) the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of the disputed domain name is “.com”, so the disputed domain name seems to be prepared for users worldwide; (c) the disputed domain name previously resolved to a webpage entirely in English; (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the language of the proceeding in both Chinese and English, and Respondent did not comment on Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding; and page 4 (e) the Center also notified Respondent in both Chinese and English of the Complaint, and informed Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese, but Respondent chose not to file any Response. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues: Three Elements 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Complainant’s CARVELA mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the CARVELA trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “southafrica”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. While the addition of the term “southafrica” may bear on the 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. Further, it is well established that the gTLD “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and, as such, is generally disregarded under the confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. 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 record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. More specifically: (i) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in page 5 connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence or reasons to justify the choice of the term “carvela”, which is the same as Complainant’s CARVELA trademark, in the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the CARVELA trademark or to register or use any domain name incorporating the CARVELA marks; (ii) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 14, 2026, many years after the CARVELA mark was registered in South Africa (since 1993). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CARVELA marks; and (iii) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website purporting to offer goods under the CARVELA mark. Respondent deliberately imitates Complainant’s official website by replicating the overall website layout. Therefore, Respondent has attempted to make profits through the Internet traffic attracted to the website under the disputed domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademark. Based on the available record, 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent has registered and used the disputed 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. Based on the information provided by Complainant, the Panel finds that Complainant has established substantial goodwill and reputation in the CARVELA marks in connection with footwear, handbags and fashion accessories. It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had Complainant’s trademark in mind at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (April 14, 2026). This has been reinforced by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CARVELA trademark entirely together with the geographical term “South Africa” where Complainant is located, and that the use of Complainant’s trademark on the website under the disputed domain name. Respondent has used the website to offer goods under the CARVELA mark. Additionally, Respondent deliberately imitates Complainant’s official website by replicating the overall website layout, thereby creating the false impression that the website is operated, authorised or endorsed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent is using a confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s CARVELA trademark. Such use constitutes bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. page 6 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 <carvelasouthafrica.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Yijun Tian/ Yijun Tian Sole Panelist Date: July 18, 2026

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