Zsazsazsu.com

The timeline behind zsazsazsu.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 SOLİD MAĞAZACILIK HİZMETLERİ TİCARET VE SANAYİ ANONİM ŞİRKETİ v. Gregory Romano, Romano Solutions Case No. D2026-2388 1. The Parties The Complainant is SOLİD MAĞAZACILIK HİZMETLERİ TİCARET VE SANAYİ ANONİM ŞİRKETİ, Türkiye, represented by DLC Law Firm, Türkiye. The Respondent is Gregory Romano, Romano Solutions, United States of America, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <zsazsazsu.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 2, 2026. On June 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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 Respondent / Privacy or Proxy Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 4, 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 June 9, 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 June 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2026. The due date was extended to July 6, 2026, pursuant to paragraph 5(b) of the Rules. The Response was filed with the Center on July 6, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 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 Since 2023, the Complainant has sold home decoration, furniture, textiles and other products under the mark ZSA ZSA ZSU, including via a website at “www.zsazsazsu.com.tr”. The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks and pending applications for ZSA ZSA ZSU including International Registration No. 1811954, registered on May 23, 2024. The disputed domain name was registered on November 23, 2003. It has not been used for an active 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 Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because, amongst other things, the Respondent has not been authorised to use the Complainant's mark, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial purpose; - the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive mark and corresponds to the “.com” version of the Complainant’s principal website, creates a risk of implied affiliation and prevents the Complainant from reflecting its mark in that commercially important domain name; - although the disputed domain name was originally created in 2003, the publicly available records do not establish that the Respondent has owned it continuously since that date, and the Panel should therefore take into account any Registrar-disclosed information indicating a later acquisition or change of control by the Respondent; - alternatively, even if the Respondent has owned the disputed domain name continuously since 2003, the Respondent’s continued renewal and passive holding of the disputed domain name, together with the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s mark, the absence of any rights or legitimate interests, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service, and the absence of any plausible good-faith use, support a finding of bad faith; and - the Respondent’s retention of the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement and prevents the Complainant from using the corresponding “.com” domain name for its online business. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied two of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Respondent contends that: page 3 - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2003 for a future local wedding planning and photography business, inspired by the expression “zsa zsa zsu” used in the television series “Sex and the City ” to describe the feeling of falling in love, and the Respondent still intends to establish that business on retirement; - the Respondent’s intended business would not conflict with the Complainant’s business or the goods and services covered by its trade marks; - the Respondent’s delay in using the disputed domain name does not negate its legitimate interest because the Policy does not require immediate commercial use; - the disputed domain name was not registered in bad faith because the Complainant, its business and its trade mark rights did not exist in 2003, making it impossible for the Respondent to have targeted the Complainant; - passive holding does not establish bad faith in the circumstances of this case because there is no evidence that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and the Respondent’s intended future use would not conflict with the Complainant’s business; - the Respondent has never sought to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant, demanded payment, auctioned the disputed domain name, diverted Internet users, or impersonated the Complainant; and - the Respondent’s use of a privacy service was solely for personal privacy, the underlying contact details have always been maintained, and the Respondent had no contact with the Complainant before these proceedings. 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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is unnecessary for the Panel to consider this element in light of the Panel’s conclusion under the third element below. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Except for limited circumstances involving registration of a domain name to capitalise on nascent trade mark rights, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trade mark rights accrue. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.8.1. The Respondent has demonstrated that it acquired the disputed domain name in 2003, whereas the Complainant does not claim any trade mark rights predating November 3, 2023. As the Complainant and its rights did not exist in 2003, the disputed domain name could not have been registered in bad faith. This is fatal to the Complainant’s case because the Complainant is required to page 4 prove both registration and use in bad faith. Contrary to the Complainant’s assertion, the mere renewal of the disputed domain name by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.9. Nor does the doctrine of passive holding assist the Complainant given the lack of registration in bad faith/targeting on the part of the Respondent. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: July 24, 2026

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