ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Vida Shoes International, Inc. v. avafza urgtk Case No. D2025-1797 1. The Parties The Complainant is Vida Shoes International, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Kane Kessler, PC, United States. The Respondent is avafza urgtk, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
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 May 5, 2025. On May 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 7, 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 May 8, 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 May 9, 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 13, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 12, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 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 Complainant and its predecessors have been using the mark AQUATALIA in connection with footwear since at least as early as August 2011. The Complainant is the owner of all rights in and to the mark AQUATALIA in connection with, inter alia, footwear. The Complainant also owns a United States Trademark Registration No. 4,349,879, registered June 11, 2013, covering “on-line retail store services, namely, footwear.” The Complainant conducts business on the Internet at “www.aquatalia.com”. The Respondent is operating the website at the disputed domain name and is purportedly offering for sale goods at heavily discounted prices (in many cases of around a 90% of the original price) at and through the website identified and labeled as AQUATALIA goods. The Respondent is also holding itself out as the Complainant and/or as affiliated with or an authorized distributor of the Complainant. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 10, 2024. 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 the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety and is nearly identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purpose of selling counterfeit goods bearing the Complainant’s mark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply 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.
page 3 The entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The additional term “brand” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7, 1.8. The Panel finds 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 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. There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any trademark or service mark rights in connection with the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Rather, the Respondent is intentionally and misleadingly diverting consumers to a fraudulent website which purportedly offers counterfeit goods bearing the Complainant’s mark. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for such illegal activity, sale of counterfeit goods, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, 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 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent is operating a website at the disputed domain name offering goods that the Complainant identifies as counterfeit goods bearing the Complainant’s mark, and making a prominent use of the Complainant’s mark on the website to create an impression of affiliation with the Complainant. The record indicates that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark. Paragraph 4(b) 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.
page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for the type of illegal activity claimed here: the sale of counterfeit goods, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, 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. The Panel finds that the 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Lynda J. Zadra-Symes/ Lynda J. Zadra-Symes Sole Panelist Date: July 11, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy