Duomo-florence-tickets.org

The timeline behind duomo-florence-tickets.org

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 Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore v. Pedro Arriola, The Walker Tours LLC Case No. D2026-3090 1. The Parties The Complainant is Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore, Italy, represented by Studio Legale Del Re, Italy. The Respondent is Pedro Arriola, The Walker Tours LLC, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <duomo-florence-tickets.org> is registered with OVH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 14, 2026. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 15, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from the named Respondent (Name redacted for privacy (registrant of duomo-florence- tickets.org)) and contact information in the Complaint. On the same day, the Center sent an email communication to the Complainant , 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 in English on the same day. On July 15, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Spanish and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Spanish. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s request. 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 21, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 10, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. page 2 Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 12, 2026. The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on August 26, 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 is an autonomous lay institution (“fabbriceria”) established in 1296, with legal personality under Italian law and responsibility for the management, preservation, and promotion of the Florence Cathedral monumental complex. The monumental complex comprises the cathedral (i.e., the Duomo), Brunelleschi’s Dome, Giotto’s Bell Tower, the baptistery, the basilica of Santa Reparata, and the Opera del Duomo Museum. According to its by-laws (“statuto”), the Complainant has responsibility inter alia, exclusively for social purposes, to establish the conditions of access to the complex. To that end, the Complainant offers for sale admission tickets and guided tours, in particular via a website in Italian and English associated with the sub-domain <duomo.firenze.it> . The Complainant’s online ticketing platform is within that website, associated with the sub-sub-domain <tickets.duomo.firenze.it> and titled “Official Tickets | Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence” and subtitled “Buy official tickets for Florence Duomo complex”. Tickets are marketed as the “Brunelleschi Pass”, the “Giotto Pass”, and the “Ghiberti Pass”. Most of the Complainant’s income is from admission ticket sales. The Respondent is an individual and a tour company based in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2025. It resolves to a website in six languages that displays a small “Feel The City” logo, offering tickets and audio guides for the Florence Duomo, Dome and Bell Tower, a guided tour of the Dome and Cathedral of Florence, a ticket combining the Duomo, the Dome and the Uffizi Gallery, and a Duomo basic ticket. At the time when the Complaint was filed, the ticketing page displayed a cathedral logo alongside the words “Duomo di Firenze”, with “by Feel The City” in small print but, at the time of this Decision, the cathedral logo has been replaced by the “Feel The City” logo. One offering is described as including a “skip-the-line” ticket to Brunelleschi’s Dome, a guided tour, entry to the bell tower, Santa Reparata, the baptistery, and the Opera del Duomo Museum. The website reproduces the Complainant’s official map of the cathedral complex. The website contact email address is in the domain name <feelthecitytours.com>. According to evidence presented by the Complainant, a reminder email was sent from that domain to a customer who booked on the website associated with the disputed domain name. The website contact telephone numbers are in Spain. At the time of this Decision, the homepage displays a notice in small print in the page header that “This website is an independent third-party agency and booking platform.” 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 unregistered DUOMO FIRENZE mark, which has long functioned, and is recognized by consumers, as a distinctive identifier of the Complainant’s services. A prior panel found that the Complainant established unregistered trademark or service mark rights in DUOMO FIRENZE for the purposes of the Policy. See Opera di Santa Maria del Fiore v. Ravi Shah, RAVEN DIGIMARK PRIVATE LIMITED, WIPO Case No. D2025-5248. page 3 The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its DUOMO FIRENZE sign, or any translation thereof, or to sell or offer tickets to its monuments. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has acquired no trademark or service mark rights in it. The Respondent’s parasitic conduct extends to the Complainant’s specific admission products, notably, the Brunelleschi Pass. An email shows that the website associated with the disputed domain name is operated by “Feel the City Tours”. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name appropriates the Complainant’s institutional identity to divert users seeking the official channel and to impersonate the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s monumental complex is one of the world’s most recognizable cultural landmarks, and the Respondent could not plausibly have been unaware of it; the deliberate combination of the English translation of the Complainant’s institutional name with the descriptive term “tickets” reveals an intentional strategy to intercept Internet users seeking the Complainant’s official ticket office. The bad faith is confirmed by the actual use of the disputed domain name: the associated website sells, directly and without authorization, admission products to the Complainant’s monuments, while reproducing a logo confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Duomo di Firenze logo and its map of the Opera del Duomo complex, thereby impersonating the Complainant and giving the false impression of an official or authorized channel. By selling unauthorized ticket services identical to those offered by the Complainant, the Respondent confirms that the purpose of the disputed domain name is to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation and mislead consumers into believing that they are purchasing official admissions. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Spanish. 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. The Complaint and amended Complaint were filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the disputed domain name is composed of English-language and internationally understood terms; the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is presented and operated in English; and requiring the Complaint to be translated into Spanish would cause unwarranted delay and expense disproportionate to the nature of the dispute. Despite the Center sending an email regarding the language of the proceeding, and the written notification of the Complaint, in both Spanish and English, the Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding or express any interest in otherwise participating in this 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. page 4 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. The Panel would have accepted a Response in Spanish, but none was filed. 6.2 Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. Failure to demonstrate any one element will result in denial of the Complaint. 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. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant claims unregistered trademark rights in DUOMO FIRENZE. The Panel notes that trademark-like protection is available for unregistered marks under certain national legal doctrines, such as unfair competition and passing off, and is mindful of considerations of parity between complainants from different jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Panel considers that any unregistered rights of the Complainant may also support standing for the limited purposes of the UDRP, even if not under national law in a civil law jurisdiction such as Italy where the Complainant is located. The Panel further notes that in order to establish unregistered trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the Complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with its goods and/or services. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The Complainant’s by-laws show that it was founded over 700 hundred years ago and is also named the “Opera del Duomo di Firenze”. DUOMO FIRENZE is an abbreviation of that institutional name. Although this abbreviation is composed of an Italian word and an Italian place name, the combination of those two elements does not itself correspond to a common or dictionary phrase. The Complainant’s by-laws establish that one of its responsibilities is to control access to the Florence Cathedral monumental complex. The Complainant is inherently linked to that complex, which is world famous. The evidence shows that the Complainant engages in commerce by selling tickets and guided tours and, according to the earliest annual report available on its website, it has done so since at least 2013. Total revenues from sales and services exceeded EUR 11 million in 2014. The principal channel for ticket sales is its website associated with the sub-domain <duomo.firenze.it> and, according to the latest annual report available on that website, over 750,000 tickets were issued online in 2023, over 900,000 in 2024, and over 800,000 in 2025. Total ticketing revenue was worth over EUR 31 million in 2025. This evidence supports the Complainant’s assertion that it has made longstanding and substantial use of DUOMO FIRENZE in relation to ticket sales. The fact that a respondent is shown to have been targeting a complainant’s mark, based on the manner in which the mark is used on the related website, may also support the complainant’s assertion and evidence that its mark has achieved significance as a source-identifier. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. In the present case, the Respondent uses the alleged mark in the disputed domain name for commercial gain to attract customers seeking tickets to, and guided tours of, the Complainant’s monumental complex. The use of a cathedral logo alongside “Duomo di Firenze” (with “by Feel The City” only in small print) on the Respondent’s ticketing page clearly referred to the Complainant’s monumental complex (as well as another page 5 attraction) as a source of services. These circumstances support the Complainant’s assertion that its DUOMO FIRENZE mark has achieved significance as a source identifier. Therefore, the Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered trademark rights in DUOMO FIRENZE sufficient for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The disputed domain name reproduces the first term in the DUOMO FIRENZE mark (i.e., “Duomo”) and combines it with a translation of the second term (i.e., “Florence”). In the Panel’s view, a considerable part of the public will make an association between the semi-translated combination and the mark. Despite the addition of the descriptive term “tickets”, and the separation of the terms with hyphens, the variant of the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The only additional element in the disputed domain name is a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension (“.org”). Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7, 1.8, 1.11.1, and 1.14. Therefore, 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. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates a semi-translated variant of the DUOMO FIRENZE mark, combined with the descriptive word “tickets”, separating the terms with hyphens. It adds the gTLD extension “.org”, which is commonly used by non-profit organizations. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers for sale tickets for the Complainant’s monumental complex (as well as another attraction in Florence), displaying a cathedral logo on the ticketing page and only a small logo for the Respondent. This all gives the impression that the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant’s official site, or a site authorized by the Complainant. However, the Complainant submits that it has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its DUOMO FIRENZE sign, or any translation thereof, or to sell or offer tickets to its monuments. The evidence does not show the presence, a t the time when the Complaint was filed, of any disclaimer of a relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, and the current disclaimer is not conspicuous. These circumstances do not indicate that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; nor that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Further, the Registrar has confirmed that the Respondent’s names are “Pedro Arriola, The Walker Tours LLC”, neither of which resembles the disputed domain name. Nothing in the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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 6 Based on the 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. The fourth circumstance is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.” The disputed domain name was registered in 2025, after the Complainant’s rights arose in the DUOMO FIRENZE mark. The disputed domain name incorporates a semi-translated variant of that mark, combined with the descriptive word “tickets”, separating each term with hyphens. It resolves to a website that offers for sale tickets to the Complainant’s monumental complex, displaying the Complainant’s map of that complex. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its mark at the time when it registered the disputed domain name. As regards use, the disputed domain name operates by attempting to attract Internet users searching for tickets to the Complainant’s monumental complex and diverting them to the Respondent’s website. The website gives the false impression that the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant’s official site, or a site authorized by the Complainant. The Respondent appears to seek to profit from this arrangement as a ticket reseller. In view of these circumstances and the findings in Section 6.2B above, the Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product on that website, within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Therefore, 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 <duomo-florence-tickets.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Matthew Kennedy/ Matthew Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: September 8, 2026

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