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 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 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 be transferred to Complainant. /Georges Nahitchevansky/ Georges Nahitchevansky Sole Panelist Date: September 22, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy