Terravitashop.shop

The timeline behind terravitashop.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 LABORATOIRE TERRAVITA v. Trevor Patterson Case No. D2026-3529 1. The Parties The Complainant is LABORATOIRE TERRAVITA, France, represented by Coblence Avocats, France. The Respondent is Trevor Patterson, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <terravitashop.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 August 8, 2026. On August 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 17, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 17, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 16, 2026. The Center appointed Delia-Mihaela Belciu as the sole panelist in this matter on September 23, 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 a French company offering nutritional supplements. The Complainant is the owner of several TERRAVITA/ trademark registrations, among which: - the French Trademark Registration No. 4685665 for TERRAVITA, registered on April 23, 2021, for goods in classes 3, 4, 5, 29, and 32; - the International Trademark Registration No. 1601286 for TERRAVITA, registered on March 10, 2021, for goods in classes 3, 4, 5, 29, and 32; - the French Trademark Registration No. 4908005 for TERRAVITA, registered on February 10, 2023, for services in class 35. In addition, the Complainant owns several domain names, among which <terravita.fr>, registered since March 27, 2016, <terravita.net>, registered since September 6, 2017, and <laboratoireterravita.com>, registered since May 6, 2020. The disputed domain name <terravitashop.shop> was registered on July 15, 2026, and according to the evidence available in the file, is used in relation to a website reproducing the Complainant’s products’ images and commercial presentation while offering alleged TERRAVITA products for sale. 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: (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TERRAVITA mark, as it incorporates it in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term “shop”, in addition to the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name for a number of reasons, among which that: (1) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, (2) has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its TERRAVITA marks, nor to proceed with the registration of the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant’s TERRAVITA mark, (3) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name is used in relation to a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks, products’ images and commercial presentation while offering alleged TERRAVITA products for sale; (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for a number of reasons, among which that, (1) the Complainant’s TERRAVITA marks have been registered prior to the disputed domain name, and, in the Complainant’s view, the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant’s prior rights regarding its TERRAVITA marks when it registered the disputed domain name, (2) the disputed domain name incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s prior TERRAVITA mark, with the addition of the descriptive term “shop”, term commonly understood by consumers as indicating an official e-commerce platform, and which strongly suggests, in the Complainant’s view, that, the Respondent wished to use the disputed domain name for online retail allegedly associated with the Complainant or at least as an alleged authorised distributor of the Complainant’s products, (3) the disputed domain name is used in relation to a website offering alleged TERRAVITA products for sale. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to succeed, such must prove, according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that: (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 with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In case all three elements above have been fulfilled, the Panel is able to grant the remedy requested by the Complainant. Thus, the Panel will deal with each of the requirements in turn. 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 that the entirety of the Complainant’s TERRAVITA mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name with the addition of the term “shop”, which does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TERRAVITA mark. 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, in this case “shop”, 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. In what concerns the addition of the gTLD “.shop” in relation to the disputed domain name, such is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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. Thus, based on the available evidence, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “terravita”, nor “terravitashop”. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission, authorization, consent, or license to use its TERRAVITA mark, including in the disputed domain name, and also, between the Respondent and the Complainant there is no relationship, based on the evidence available in this file. Moreover, based on the evidence filed by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website reproducing the Complainant’s products’ images and commercial presentation while offering alleged TERRAVITA products for sale, without any authorisation from the Complainant and without disclosing the lack of relationship with the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, as in this case passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s TERRAVITA mark with the addition of the descriptive term “shop”, might lead to confusion for Internet users and as such, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. All the above does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s rights in the TERRAVITA mark predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. In light of the above, the Panel finds that it is not conceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s TERRAVITA mark, which supports a finding of bad faith registration. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. 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 Respondent’s incorporation into the disputed domain name of the Complainant’s TERRAVITA mark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “shop” (which could be leading to the idea of an online shop of the Complainant or associated to the Complainant), the failure of the Respondent to submit a response in this file, as well the fact that, according to the evidence available in this file, the website corresponding to the disputed domain name redirected Internet users to a website reproducing the Complainant’s products’ images and commercial presentation while offering alleged TERRAVITA products for sale, without any authorisation from the Complainant and without for the Respondent to disclose the lack of relationship with the Complainant, is clear evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name, and all lead to a finding of bad faith registration and use. Moreover, the Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's TERRAVITA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for an illegal activity, as in this case passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy and 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 <terravitashop.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Delia-Mihaela Belciu/ Delia-Mihaela Belciu Sole Panelist Date: October 7, 2026

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