Av Holding S.r.l. v RONGKAI

WIPO Case No. DCO2025-0040

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AV Holding S.r.l. v. RONGKAI

Case No. DCO2025-0040

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AV Holding S.r.l., Italy, represented by Studio Brevetti Turini s.r.l., Italy.

The Respondent is RONGKAI, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allanticovinaio.co> is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 14, 2025.
On April 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 15, 2025, 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) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 17, 2025, 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 April 22, 2025.

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 May 1, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2025.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2025. 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

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a worldwide commercial network specializing mainly in stuffed schiacciate (a type of flatbread), with numerous shops opened in various cities in Italy and other countries of the world.

The Complainant owns various trademark registrations, including the International Trademark ALL’ANTICO name <allanticovinaio.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 24, 2024. The Complainant alleges that the website associated with the disputed domain name is inactive, although no evidence is provided. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a parked page offering it for sale for USD 1,450.

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.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not submitted any response 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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

Apart from the removal of the apostrophe in the Complainant’s trademark (which cannot be reproduced in a domain name) and the country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” (for Colombia), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark and is as such confusingly similar thereto.

Accordingly, 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 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

page 3

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 3.0, section
2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that 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 evidence

demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel takes into account that the terms comprising the disputed domain name can have dictionary meaning in the Italian language. Noting the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s own domain name <allanticovinaio.com> and the lack of any substantive Response putting forward a legitimate non-infringing purpose, the Panel infers, on the balance of probabilities, that the
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on account of its potential value based on the

ALL’ANTICO VINAIO mark .

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.

Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding
(WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3).

While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.

An application of these factors to the present case supports a finding that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Noting the current commercialization of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds it more likely than not that by offering the disputed domain name for sale the

Respondent has intended to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill inherent in the Complainant’s trademark, which is bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has also 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 <allanticovinaio.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tobias Zuberbühler/
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: June 17, 2025