Vanquish Yachts B.V., VQ Holding B.V. v Moamar Nardone, Sustainable

WIPO Case No. DPH2025-0002

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Vanquish Yachts B.V., VQ Holding B.V. v. Moamar Nardone, Sustainable
Charters Inc.

Case No. DPH2025-0002

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Vanquish Yachts B.V., and VQ Holding B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the) (“the

Netherlands”), represented by LXA N.V., the Netherlands.

The Respondent is Moamar Nardone, Sustainable Charters Inc., Philippines.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <vanquish.ph> is registered with DotPH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 28, 2025. On April 29, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 30, 2025, Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing contact details for the disputed domain name which differed from the contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on April 30, 2025, providing the contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 1, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the .PH Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“phDRP” or the “Policy”), the
Rules for .PH Uniform Dispute Resolution Implementation Rules (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental
Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 9, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 29, 2025. The Respondent did not file a Response, and the Center sent the Notification of Respondent Default on June 3, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 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 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainants are part of a group that has supplied high-end motor yachts worldwide under the mark
VANQUISH since 2005.

The Complainants are collectively referred to hereafter as “the Complainant”, unless it is necessary to refer to them separately.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for VANQUISH including United States trade mark No. 3064961, registered on March 7, 2006, in class 12.

The Complainant operates a website at “

The disputed domain name was registered on March 14, 2020.

As of April 9, 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that sought to impersonate the Complainant by prominent use of the Complainant’s “VQ YACHTS” logo as well as extensive use of material copied from the Complainant’s website including text, and images of the Complainant’s products displayed in conjunction with the Complainant’s “VQ” product numbers.

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 did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Consolidation: Multiple Complainants

The Panel is satisfied that (a) the Complainants, which are part of a group of companies, have a specific common grievance against the Respondent and the Respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the Complainants in similar fashion and (b) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to allow this proceeding to be filed by both Complainants. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition[1], (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.1.

[1] Although WIPO Overview 3.0 is directed to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), given the similarity

page 3

B. 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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

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

The Panel finds the mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(b) 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 phDRP 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 nature of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate/unlawful activity (here, claimed impersonation/passing) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. See further under the third element below.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a) 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 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate/unlawful activity (here, claimed impersonation/passing off) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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.

page 4

In particular, as outlined in section 4 above, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is
identical to the Complainant’s long-standing trade mark, for a website that sought to impersonate the
Complainant including by use of the Complainant’s logo and by extensive unauthorised copying of the

Complainant’s website content.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(h) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the
Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <vanquish.ph> be cancelled, as requested by the Complainant.

/Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: June 27, 2025

between the UDRP and the phDRP, it is appropriate to have regard to these principles except to the extent that the Policy diverges from
the UDRP.