Vida Shoes International, Inc. v gvngtl helqc
WIPO Case No. D2025-0643
•11-04-2025
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Vida Shoes International, Inc. v. gvngtl helqc
Case No. D2025-0643
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Vida Shoes International, Inc., United States of America (“USA”), represented by Kane
Kessler, P.C., USA.
The Respondent is gvngtl helqc, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <aquataliashop.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2025. On February 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 20, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 24, 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 February 28, 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 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 24, 2025.
The Center appointed Dennis A. Foster 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
The Complainant is a USA company which for several decades has engaged in the online sale of footwear.
The Complainant conducts its business under the service mark AQUATALIA which is registered with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (registration no. 4,349,879, registered on June 11,
2013, international class 35 for on-line retail store services, namely, footwear). Also, in offering its services,
the Complainant utilizes a website attached to its domain name <aquatalia.com>.
The Respondent owns the disputed domain name <aquataliashop.com>, which was registered on October
14, 2024. The disputed domain name is connected to a website that prominently displays the Complainant’s
AQUATALIA trademark and purports to sell footwear comparable to that sold by the Complainant.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
| - | For many years, the Complainant has been in the business of selling footwear online through its website at its domain name <aquatalia.com>. These sales predate by several decades the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. |
| - | The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s service mark AQUATALIA, and is therefore confusingly similar to that mark. The addition of the generic term “shop” does not create a meaningful distinction. |
| - | The Respondent does not possess rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no affiliation or grant of rights from the Complainant to the Respondent. |
| - | The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a website that traffics in the same type of shoes that the Complainant is marketing online, which use fails to conform to a “bona fide offering of goods or services” under the Policy. |
| - | The Respondent’s fraudulent sales actions do not constitute a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of the disputed domain name. |
| - | The Respondent has not been commonly known as the disputed domain name. |
| - | The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant in the sale of duplicate footwear. |
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions
6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraphs 4(a)(i) - (iii) of the Policy, the Panel may find for the Complainant and order a transfer of the disputed domain name, <aquatalia.com>, provided the Complainant can establish that:
| - | The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and |
| - | The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and |
| - | The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. |
page 3
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has presented the Panel with sufficient evidence that it owns a valid USPTO registration for
the service mark AQUATALIA, and thus the Panel finds that the Complainant possesses trademark rights in
that mark in line with the requirements of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected
UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1; and Ryan Tetsuo Onishi v. todd elliott,
Elliott Financial Group, WIPO Case No. D2024-4132 (“The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a
trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy [...] by virtue of the Mark’s registration with the
USPTO”).
Missoni S.p.A. v. Rob Mayer, WIPO Case No. D2012-1250 (finding <missonishop.info> to be confusingly similar to the MISSONI mark); and Campagnolo S.r.l. v. Marzena Zytka, WIPO Case No. D2008-1037 (finding <campagnoloshop.com> to be confusingly similar to the CAMPAGNOLO mark).
The disputed domain name is not identical to the Complainant’s AQUATALIA mark, but the Panel discerns domain name is confusingly similar to the AQUATALIA service mark. See
that the mark is included within the disputed domain name. As a result, the Panel concludes that the
addition of the term “shop” does not prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant owns rights per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has set forth a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark and the Respondent has no authorization to use that mark in any manner. As a result, in order to prevail in this case, the Respondent should come forward with evidence to rebut this prima facie case. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; and see Stoxx AG v. 247 Holdings Group, WIPO Case No. D2012-1582 (“It is a consensus view under the UDRP that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent.”).
However, having not filed a Response, the Respondent is reduced to reliance on the Panel’s assessment of the overall record as to whether there are any circumstances that might constitute a rebuttal to the Complainant’s prima facie case. In rendering this assessment, the Panel will accept as true all reasonable contentions presented in the Complaint. See, OSRAM GmbH. v. Mohammed Rafi/Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service INC d/b/a PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2015-1149 (“The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint, in the absence of which the Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations in the Complaint as true.”).
The Complainant has contended and presented evidence that the website attached to the disputed domain name offers Internet users the same merchandise offered by the Complainant under its AQUATALIA mark at the website connected to its domain name <aquatalia.com>. The Panel determines that this apparently illegitimate use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent fails to constitute “a bona fide offering of goods or services” per Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). Moreover, as the Complainant contends, it is hard to believe that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, so the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) also does not apply in this case. Finally, as the aforementioned use of the disputed domain name is directed toward the Respondent’s financial gain and not for “a legitimate noncommercial or fair use”, the Panel concludes that Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii) is inapplicable as well. Consequently, based on its analysis of the evidence in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s prima facia case has not been rebutted and must prevail.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
page 4
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four non-exhaustive circumstances in which a panel might find that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from
reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such
conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a
competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or
service on your web site or location.
| the Complainant and its AQUATALIA service mark, and targeted that mark in bad faith when registering the | Based on the submitted evidence, the Panel believes there is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of domain name.”). |
| Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith per Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). | |
| 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, <aquataliashop.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. | |
| /Dennis A. Foster/ Dennis A. Foster Sole Panelist Date: April 11, 2025 |
0
0
0