Bvulgari.xyz

The timeline behind bvulgari.xyz

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 Bulgari S.p.A v. Samurai Hinato Case No. D2026-3472 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bulgari S.p.A, Italy, represented by Safenames Ltd, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Samurai Hinato, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bvulgari.xyz> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 5, 2026. On August 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 6, 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 (Privacy service provided by Witheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 11, 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 11, 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 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 6, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 8, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Yuri Chumak as the sole panelist in this matter on September 15, 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, Bulgari S.p.A., is an Italian company operating in the luxury goods and hotel markets. It markets jewellery, watches, fragrances, leather goods, and accessories under the BULGARI and BVLGARI marks. Its hotel and resort offerings include a resort in Dubai. The Complainant owns trademark registrations including: - International Registration No. 452694 for BULGARI, registered on May 15, 1980, in Classes 11, 14, 20, and 21; - European Union Registration No. 007138101 for BVLGARI, registered on June 3, 2009, in Classes 35, 36, 41, and 43, including hotel management and accommodation services. The Complainant promotes its products and hotel offerings through the websites at “www.bulgari.com” and “www.bulgarihotels.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on May 15, 2026. It previously resolved to a website displaying the BVLGARI mark and purporting to offer hotel and resort services. At the time the Complaint was filed, it no longer resolved to 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. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BVLGARI and BULGARI marks. The insertion of an additional letter constitutes typosquatting and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use the Complainant’s marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Its previous use for a website presenting itself as the Complainant’s Dubai resort does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Its trademark rights substantially predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s selection of a misspelling of the marks and use of the BVLGARI branding to promote hotel services demonstrate deliberate targeting of the Complainant for commercial gain. The Complainant also relies on the subsequent deactivation of the disputed domain name. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 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 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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. The disputed domain name differs from BVLGARI by the insertion of the letter “u” after “v”, and from BULGARI by the insertion of the letter “v” after “b”. These minor variations do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. The generic Top-Level Domain “.xyz” is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded for the purposes of this comparison. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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. The Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s marks. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website displaying the BVLGARI mark and the heading “BVLGARI RESORT page 4 DUBAI”, and promoting hotel and resort services. This presentation gave the impression that the website was operated by or affiliated with the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for impersonation or passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademark rights substantially predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s marks, together with the website’s use of the BVLGARI branding and references to its Dubai resort, supports the finding that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its marks. The Respondent used the disputed domain name to present a website appearing to be associated with the Complainant’s resort and promoting hotel and resort services. On the balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the services promoted on it. This constitutes evidence of bad-faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The subsequent inactivity of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith, particularly given its prior use to impersonate the Complainant and the absence of any explanation from the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. 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 <bvulgari.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. /Yuri Chumak/ Yuri Chumak Sole Panelist Date: September 16, 2026

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