Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v Anthony Levinson

WIPO Case No. D2025-0748

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Guccio Gucci S.p.A. v. Anthony Levinson

Case No. D2025-0748

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Guccio Gucci S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy.

The Respondent is Anthony Levinson, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <guccì.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 24, 2025. On February 24, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 26, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 March 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was March 23, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2025.

The Center appointed Torsten Bettinger as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 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

Complainant is an Italian Public Limited Company and is a member of the international conglomerate company Kering (previously Pinault-Printemps-Redoute, PPR), which is a global apparel and accessories company.

Complainant owns many trademark registrations worldwide, including the following:

- Italian Trademark Registration No. 362016000132789 for GUCCI (word mark), filed on December 30, 2016, and registered on September 6, 2017, in all classes;

- International Trademark Registration No. 429833 for GUCCI (word mark), registered on March 30,

1977, in classes 3, 14, 18, and 25; and

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 121988 for GUCCI (word mark), filed on April 1, 1996, and registered on November 24, 1998, in all classes;

Complainant is also the owner of a number of domain names identical or similar to the trademark GUCCI, including the domain name <gucci.com>, registered on June 5, 1996.

On August 14, 2023, Complainant’s representative sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent, requesting
the transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Respondent did not reply to the

Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter.

The disputed domain name <guccì.com> (<xn--gucc-tpa.com> in ASCII characters), was registered on
February 16, 2023 and resolved to pay-per click (“PPC”) website with sponsored links unrelated to

Complainant’s products.

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 it is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide for the GUCCI trademark, both alone and in combination with other word and/or device elements. Complainant asserts that the GUCCI mark is famous worldwide and has been used for more than 100 years in connection with products in the high-fashion and leather industry. Complainant provided evidence that the GUCCI

trademark was and is supported by substantial advertising.

With regard to the requirement of “identity or confusing similarity between the trademark and the domain name” pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant submits that

- the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GUCCI trademark as the only difference between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is the addition of an accent to the letter “i”;

- the disputed domain name is likely to create confusion due to its visual similarity with the

Complainant’s trademark;

- the addition of the gTLD .com is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is

disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.

page 3

With regard to the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the
Complainant submitted that

- Respondent is not a licensee, authorized agent of Complainant or in any other way authorized to use Complainant’s trademark GUCCI;

- Complainant is not in possession of, nor aware of the existence of any evidence demonstrating that Respondent might be commonly known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name;
- in light of the use of the privacy protection service to conceal its identity, Respondent cannot have been commonly known by the disputed domain name before any notice of the dispute;
- Respondent has not provided Complainant with any evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations
to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before or after
any notice of the dispute herein;

- the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying sponsored links, which generate revenues, via the pay-per-click system, to the domain holder and/or to the Registrar;

- such use 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 without intent for commercial gain;
- the disputed domain name <guccì.com>, being virtually identical to the trademark GUCCI, creates a high risk of implied affiliation with Complainant;

- Respondent did not reply to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the authorized representative of

Complainant.

Finally, with regard to the disputed domain name having been registered and being used in bad faith, the

Complainant argues that,

- in light of the fact that the trademark GUCCI is well known it is inconceivable that Respondent was
unaware of the existence of Complainant or Complainant’s trademark GUCCI, with which the Domain Name

is virtually identical, and certainly confusingly similar;

- the disputed domain name has been redirected to a webpage displaying several sponsored links and
as a result, Respondent might earn commissions whenever an Internet user visits the website and clicks on

one of the sponsored links featured therein;

- the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or

widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith;
- Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by
creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or

endorsement of Respondent’s website;

- Respondent failed to reply to the cease-and-desist letter sent by Complainant’s representative.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights; and
(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.

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

page 4

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.

The disputed domain name consists of the GUCCI mark in its entirety and differs from the Complainant's GUCCI mark only by the replacement of the letter “i” with an accented letter “ì” followed by the generic top level domain (‘gTLD’) “.com”.

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s

GUCCI trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

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 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 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 Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a PPC parking website for the purpose of generating Internet traffic by appropriating the Complainant’s reputation and trademark cannot be regarded as legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

In addition, no evidence has been provided to prove that the Respondent has trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent has become known by the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0., section 2.5.1.

The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that, accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

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.

page 5

In the present case, the Complainant provided evidence of multiple trademark registrations for the GUCCI mark that predate the registration of the disputed domain name and are identical to the disputed domain name.

In light of the extensive use of the Complainant’s GUCCI trademark for more than 100 years and the fact that the disputed domain name only differs from Complainant’s GUCCI trademark by the addition of an accent to the letter “i”, the Panel has no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the

Complainant’s trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Based on the record in this proceeding it is also undisputed that the disputed domain name directed and currently resolves Internet users to a PPC parking page.

The purpose of this PPC parking website clearly was to attract Internet users to the site, for profit, based on their confusing similarity with the Complainant. Once on the disputed domain name, some Internet users could likely click on PPC links, which presumably result in click-through fees and thus in a commercial

benefit for the Respondent.

The Panel therefore infers that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name in this manner, has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark likely for the Respondent’s financial gain and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 <guccì.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Torsten Bettinger/
Torsten Bettinger
Sole Panelist
Date: April 10, 2025