Valentino-ch.com, Valentino-fr.com

The timeline behind valentino-ch.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Valentino S.p.A. v. Christian Schmidt Case No. D2026-3281 1. The Parties The Complainant is Valentino S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is Christian Schmidt, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain names <valentino-ch.com> and <valentino-fr.com> are registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 24, 2026. On July 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 25, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 12, 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 August 12, 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 August 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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 VALENTINO S.p.A., a n Italian company dedicated to fashion design and luxury goods. The Complainant has documented and substantiated the longstanding use and reputation of the mark VALENTINO, on a worldwide scale. It owns rights in the name VALENTINO through a number of trademark and domain name registrations, inter alia: - International Trademark Registration No. 570593, registered on April 24, 1991; - International Trademark Registration No. 764790, registered on November 20, 2000; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 001990407, filed on December 7, 2000, registered on September 18, 2008; and the domain name <valentino.com> registered on July 21, 1998. The disputed domain names are <valentino-ch.com> and <valentino-fr.com>, both registered on June 26, 2026. Both disputed domain names resolve to a web site where fashion and luxury goods are purportedly offered for sale, under the Complainant’s trademark and logo, along with photos of Complainant’s stores and other Complainant’s marketing materials (product photos, etc.). The Complainant’s attempts to serve a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent and have its web site deactivated failed. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is unknown to them and that no authorization was ever granted to the Respondent to use the mark and/or act as an authorized dealer. The Complainant deduces from the very low price at which the goods are offered for sale on the Respondent’s website that the said goods are counterfeits. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (paragraph 4 (a)(iii)). 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 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are 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 “ch” and “fr ”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 The Panel finds that the record does not establish any circumstances giving rise to rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain names. In particular, the record supports the following findings: (i) there is no evidence that, before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and section 2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.1; (ii) there is no evidence that the Respondent, whether as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy and section 2.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1; (iii) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy and section 2.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1; and (iv) the record discloses no other circumstances that would support a finding of rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent. The disputed domain names resolve to a website through which the Respondent offers products purporting to be the Complainant’s genuine goods under the trademark. To the extent that the products offered through the Respondent’s website are not genuine products of the Complainant, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests. Rather, such use would involve the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademark in connection with the offering of potentially counterfeit goods. The Panel further finds that, even if the products offered through the Respondent’s websites were genuine products, this would not, of itself, establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The principles applicable to the use of a domain name by a reseller of trademarked goods were established in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, and are reflected in section 2.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Under the “Oki Data test”, a reseller or distributor using a domain name incorporating a complainant’s trademark may, in appropriate circumstances, establish a bona fide offering of goods or services, and hence a legitimate interest in the domain name, where the following cumulative requirements are met: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) the respondent must use the website to sell only the trademarked goods or services; (iii) the website must accurately and prominently disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) the respondent must not seek to “corner the market” in domain names reflecting the trademark. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s website does not satisfy the requirements of the Oki Data test. In particular, the website does not accurately and prominently disclose the nature of the Respondent’s lack of relationship with the Complainant. There was no indication that the Respondent is an independent reseller, nor that it is an authorized dealer or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant. To the contrary, the prominent display of the VALENTINO trademark, together with the absence of any disclaimer or other information identifying the operator of the website, creates an overall false impression that the website is operated by, or are otherwise officially affiliated with, the Complainant. page 5 Such presentation is inconsistent with the requirement that a reseller accurately and prominently disclose its relationship with the trademark holder. Accordingly, even assuming that the Respondent is offering genuine VALENTINO products, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services for purposes of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor does it otherwise establish rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and 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. In light of the reputation of the Complainant’s mark VALENTINO, that has been acknowledged by earlier UDRP decisions (Valentino S.p.A. v. hong chen, chen hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-2129, Valentino S.p.A. v. Qiu Yufeng, Li Lianye, WIPO Case No. D2016-1747, Valentino S.p.A. v. Wu Dong, WIPO Case No. D2018-0641, and Valentino S.p.A. v. Lijin Liu, WIPO Case No. D2020-0011), it is hardly conceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain names, all the more since both resolve to a website dedicated to the Complainant’s mark and products. The Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Websites. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Respondent registered the disputed domain names for the purposes of operating a website that passes off as official website of the Complainant allegedly offering the Complainant’s products for sale. The Respondent has used the disputed domain names, each of which is confusingly similar to the VALENTINO mark, in connection with the sale of products, whether genuine or otherwise, without the Complainant’s authorization and in competition with the Complainant. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith. 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 names <valentino-ch.com> and <valentino-fr.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: September 21, 2026

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