Mariovalentinohq.shop

The timeline behind mariovalentinohq.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 Mario Valentino S.p.A. v. Miles Carver Case No. D2026-2776 1. The Parties The Complainant is Mario Valentino S.p.A., Italy, represented by Società Italiana Brevetti S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is Miles Carver, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mariovalentinohq.shop> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2026. On June 25, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 26, 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 (Dynadot Privacy Service, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 1, 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 July 3, 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 July 7, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 27, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Philippe Gilliéron as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 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, which was founded in Naples, Italy in 1952 by Mr. Mario Valentino, is an Italian company which manufactures and sells footwear, leatherware and clothing accessories. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks on a worldwide basis which consist, in all or in part, of the terms MARIO VALENTINO, notably registered for clothing and leather products, such as: - Int ernational Registration No. 1862014 that was registered on June 9, 2025; - International Registration No. 505619 (figurative) that was registered on September 29, 1986; and - International Registration No. 512519 (figurative) that was registered on May 11, 1987. The Complainant carries out its online activities under the domain name <mariovalentino.com>, which it has owned since 1998. The Complainant further owns numerous other domain names such as, among others, <mariovalentino.eu>. On May 9, 2026, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name leads to a website that replicates the official Complainant’s website and purportedly sells the Complainant’s products. The Complainant states that the website further contains a copyright notice which reads “© Mario Valentino 2026. All rights reserved”. 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 its trademark MARIO VALENTINO, as it entirely incorporates such trademark and that the addition of the term “hq” understood as a reference to “headquarters” does not discard the resulting likelihood of confusion. The Complainant further affirms that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has never authorized the Respondent to register and use its trademarks in any way. The use made of the disputed domain name, which leads to a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks and product images to purportedly sell its products at exceptionally low prices, does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, as it falsely suggests an affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant finally is of the view that, in light of the use made of the disputed domain name as described above, the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when it registered the domain name. As a result, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “[...] decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (i) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a 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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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. 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here “hq” may bear on 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. 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. page 4 The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is used for a website purportedly offering for sale the Complainant’s products, reproducing the landing page of the Complainant’s official website, the Complainant’s trademark and product images, without indicating its lack of relationship with the Complainant. Such use does not amount to a bona fide offering. 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 the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the copying of the Complainant’s official site landing page and use of the Complainant’s trademark and product images on the website at the disputed domain name. 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. The Panel finds the use of the disputed domain name indicates the Respondent’s intention to mislead Internet users into believing that the website is operated by the Complainant, which constitutes bad faith. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name 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 name <mariovalentinohq.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Philippe Gilliéron/ Philippe Gilliéron Sole Panelist Date: August 20, 2026

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