The Complainant states that it is an Italian international luxury fashion and lifestyle company established in 1972 in Florence.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that it employs over five hundred people worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Complainant provides evidence of use of the disputed domain name, together with the Complainant's trademark and logo, in a phishing email.<\/p>\n
The Complainant provides a copy of a cease-and-desist letter sent to the Respondent through the registrar's domain contact form, for notifying him of the infringement of the Complainant’s trademark, and requesting the immediate cease of any use of it.<\/p>\n
The Complainant clarifies that the Respondent has not replied to the cease-and-desist letter.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, and the fact that it includes the generic top-level domain “.com” does not affect the confusing similarity.
The Complainant states that the Respondent is not a licensee nor an authorized agent of the Complainant nor in any other way authorized him to use Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent adds that the Respondent is not an authorized reseller of the Complainant and has not been authorized to register and use the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Complainant points out that the Respondent has not provided the Complainant with any evidence of use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute.<\/p>\n
For the above reasons, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant considers that the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademark, taking into account the Complainant's worldwide reputation in the sector of luxury fashion.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is taking advantage of the Complainant's renown for its economic advantage by sending phishing e-mails.
The Complainant observes that the lack of reply to the cease-and-desist letter is an additional evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the described circumstances demonstrate that the Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " The Complainant, relying on the arguments summarised above, contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " Language of the Proceedings<\/p>\n Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that \"unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding\".<\/p>\n The language of the Registration Agreement is Italian, therefore the language of the proceedings should be Italian, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The Complaint, however, was filed in English. The Complainant submitted a request to change the language of the proceedings into English based on the following reasons:<\/p>\n 1) the Respondent understands English in light of the following circumstances:<\/p>\n a) the disputed domain name contains Latin characters, including the English word “store” as well as the English word “.com” (which is the abbreviation for the English term “commercial” as the generic top-level domain);<\/p>\n b) in the light of the worldwide renown of the Complainant's brand \"STEFANO RICCI\", the Respondent could not ignore English, that is the main language for international relations and business;<\/p>\n 2) the translation of the Complaint into Italian would also cause additional expense and delay, making unfair to proceed in Italian.<\/p>\n 3) it would be disproportionate to require the Complainant not to submit the Complaint in English and incur costs of translation and it would be contrary to the aim of the UDRP of providing time and cost effective means of resolving domain name disputes.<\/p>\n The Panel observes that it is well-established that, in deciding whether to allow the proceedings to be conducted in a language other than the language of the Registration Agreement, the factors that should be taken into consideration include whether the Respondent is able to understand and effectively communicate in the language in which the Complaint has been made and would suffer no real prejudice, and whether the expenses of requiring translation and the delay in the proceedings can be avoided without at the same time causing injustice to the parties (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2008-0400).<\/p>\n The Panel, in line with other panels' views in similar cases (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2021-1402), considers that the fact that the Respondent has included an English word in the disputed domain name is evidence of the Respondent's knowledge of the English language.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Panel finds that substantial additional expense and delay would likely be incurred if the Complaint had to be translated into Italian. In line with other panels' views on this issue (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2015-0070), the Panel considers that the language requirement should not cause any undue burden on the parties or undue delay.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent had the opportunity to oppose the Complainant’s request, but did not submit any response. In line with the approach taken by other Panels in similar cases (see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2023-0242), the Panel considers this as an additional argument in favor of accepting English as the language of the proceedings.<\/p>\n For these reasons, having carefully considered the Complainant's submission regarding the language of the proceedings and the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel accepts the Complaint in English and shall render its decision in English.<\/p>\n The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the Policy have been met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Michele Antonini"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-05 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark \"STEFANO RICCI<\/span>\", including the international trademark No 1402542, registered on September 7, 2017, for goods and services in classes 25, 26, 28 and 35.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on February 6, 2025.<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"STEFANORICCISTORE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}