Velvet Care sp. z o.o. v Erick Caiafa

WIPO Case No. D2025-3148

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Velvet Care sp. z o.o. v. Erick Caiafa

Case No. D2025-3148

1. The Parties

Complainant is Velvet Care sp. z o.o., Poland, represented by Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak, Poland.

Respondent is Erick Caiafa, Brazil.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <velvetpolska.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 August 6, 2025.

On August 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On August 8, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact

information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 9, 2025,

providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to

submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 14, 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 Respondent of the Complaint,

and the proceedings commenced on August 15, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due

date for Response was September 4, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the

Center notified Respondent’s default on September 5, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Georges Nahitchevansky as the sole panelist in this matter on September 10, 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

Complainant, Velvet Care sp. z o.o., is a Polish manufacturer of everyday hygiene products such as paper

towels, toilet paper, wipes, tissues and related products. Complainant primarily sells its products in Central

and Eastern Europe under the name and mark VELVET. Complainant owns a number of trademark

registrations for its VELVET and VELVET formative marks in a number of jurisdictions, including, of particular

relevance here, Poland. These include, by way of example, word mark registrations for VELVET

(Registration Nos. R.238273, R.306887, R.115500, the earliest of which issued to registration on November

25, 1999). Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <velvet.pl> for a website concerning

Complainant and its products.

Respondent, who appears to be based in Brazil, registered the disputed domain name on April 24, 2025.

Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a Polish language website offering

perfumes for sale at discounted prices. Currently, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active

website, but to a page advising that “this store is unavailable.”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the

disputed domain name.

Notably, Complainant contends that it has strong rights in its VELVET mark through its use of such for

twenty-five years and on account of its many registrations for VELVET and a family of VELVET marks.

Complainant also notes that it is a leader in the hygiene products category given the many awards its

products have received.

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its VELVET mark as it

incorporates the VELVET mark in its entirety with the non-distinguishing geographic term “polska” which

stands for “poland” in Polish.

Complainant contends that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed

domain name as Respondent (i) has no trademark rights in the VELVET mark let alone “velvet polska,” (ii) is

not connected to Complainant and has never been authorized by Complainant to use its VELVET mark, (iii)

is not known by the disputed domain name, and (iv) has used the disputed domain name to attract and

redirect consumers to a website that is branded as Complainant to sell discounted perfume products. In that

regard, Complainant notes that it has received complaints from consumers believing they purchased

products from Complainant that were never delivered and were unable to recoup the funds they paid.

Lastly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith

as Respondent registered the disputed domain name that is based on Complainant's VELVET mark for use

with a website offering package deals of known luxury brand perfumes at steeply discounted prices.

Complainant further asserts, based on complaints it has received, that consumers purchase products on

Respondent’s website that are never delivered and are never reimbursed. In all, Complainant maintains that

Respondent is using the VELVET mark to mislead consumers that they are accessing a website connected

to Complainant, when such is not the case.

page 3

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which

Complainant has rights;

(ii)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name was 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

Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.7.

Here, Complainant has shown rights in its VELVET mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s

VELVET mark as the disputed domain name fully incorporates the VELVET mark. Although the addition of

other terms, here the country name “polska” (for Poland in Polish), may bear on the assessment of the

second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such country name does not prevent a finding of

confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for purposes of the Policy. WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The first element of the Policy has thus been established by Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted

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.

page 4

Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name that is clearly based on the VELVET mark with the

country name “polska” does not seem coincidental, particularly as Respondent has used the disputed

domain name for a Polish language website that offers package deals for name brand perfumes at

discounted prices. Needless to say, the disputed domain name and its associated website (when it was

available) are (or were) likely to be mistakenly seen by consumers as related to Complainant and its VELVET

products. As such, it is hard to see how Respondent could have any rights or legitimate interests in the

disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.5.1.

Moreover, given that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to trick consumers into making

purchases for products that are never delivered and for which Respondent issues no refunds strongly

suggests that the disputed domain name and associated website are being used for a fraudulent scheme.

As such, there can be no basis for Respondent to claim a legitimate interest in or bona fide use of the

disputed domain name. To be sure, Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegal

activity, here impersonating Complainant to attract consumers to Respondent’s website into making

purchase for likely fake products (and perhaps counterfeits given the deeply discounted prices), can never

confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 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 view of Respondent’s actions, and failure to appear in this proceeding, it is easy to infer that Respondent’s

registration and use of the disputed domain name, which is clearly based on Complainant’s award winning

VELVET mark and products, for a website targeted to Polish consumers, has been done opportunistically

and in bad faith for the benefit or profit of Respondent. The disputed domain name on its face suggests a

connection to Complainant and its VELVET products and was registered well after Complainant had

established rights in its VELVET mark. In all, Respondent’s noted actions make it more probable than not

that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its VELVET name and mark when it registered the

disputed domain name for the benefit of Respondent.

The Panel thus finds that 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 <velvetpolska.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Georges Nahitchevansky/

Georges Nahitchevansky

Sole Panelist

Date: September 22, 2025