Founded in 1526 by Mastro Bartolomeo Beretta, Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta is a privately held Italian firearms manufacturing company operating in several countries and the oldest active manufacturer of firearm components in the world.<\/p>\n
The Beretta forge was in operation from about 1500, although the first documented transaction is a contract dated October 3th, 1526 for 185 arquebus barrels, for which the Republic of Venice was to pay 296 ducats to Maestro di Canne (master gun-barrel maker): Bartolomeo Beretta (in Italian): by all accounts Beretta-made barrels equipped the Venetian fleet at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. The original account document for the order of those barrels is now stored in the Archivio di Stato di Venezia (in Italian) in Venice.<\/p>\n
By the end of the 17th century, Beretta had become the second largest gun barrel maker and Beretta has supplied weapons for every major European war since 1650.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, Beretta has been owned by the same family for almost five hundred years and is a founding member of \"Les Henokiens\", an association of bicentenary companies that are family-owned and operated. It is still held by Beretta family. Nowadays, Beretta firearms are used worldwide for a variety of civilian, law enforcement and military purposes: Beretta is known for the innovative technology of its products; sporting arms account for three-quarters of sales; however, it is also renowned for other products such as the marketing shooting clothes and accessories.<\/p>\n
Beretta Holding closed 2021 with 958 million euros of revenue (of which 250 milion euros has been generated by Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta), and more than 3380 employees based not only in Europe but also in Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Turkey, USA and China.<\/p>\n
Complainant registered several trademarks and domain names with the wording \"beretta\".<\/p>\n
The Respondent, whose contact information was originally completely redacted, registered <berretta.shop> on August 8, 2024, <berettagunaccessories.shop> on August 14, 2024 and <berettagearhub.shop> on July, 31, 2024. <\/p>\n
The Complainant firmly believes that a single entity controls the three disputed domain names in this case and requests that the Panel exercise its discretion to allow the consolidation of all three Respondents into a single complaint. The Complainant submits that consolidation is justified based on the following factors:<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Complainant did not authorize their registration; all three websites are currently redirected to websites publishing BERETTA trademarks, official images and clearly counterfeit products, as well as third parties’ products. <\/p>\n
The domain name holder is therefore in the view of Complainant using domain names with evident typo of BERETTA trademarks (<berretta.shop>) or containing entirety of the BERETTA trademarks in association with descriptive terms (<berettagunaccessories.shop> and <berettagearhub.shop>) to create mirror web sites of Beretta official website, that is used to fraud Internet Users with BERETTA products offered for sale at very discounted price as well as third parties products.<\/p>\n
The Complainant believes that the BERETTA trademarks are recognizable within the disputed domain names and, thus, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainant has rights, since it incorporates the entirety of the trademark. <\/p>\n
Comparing BERETTA trademarks and the domain name <beretta.com> with <berretta.com> the only difference is the addition of one letter: an “r”; comparing instead <berettagunaccessories.shop> and <berettagearhub.shop> -that entirely contains BERETTA trademarks - with complainant’s trademarks and official website, the only difference is the addition of generic terms descriptive of BERETTA products (respectively GUN ACCESSORIES and GEAR HUB).<\/p>\n
Such additions in the view of Complainant neither affect the attractive power of such trademark, nor is sufficient to prevent the finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and such mark, but even enhances the likelihood of confusion as it could easily mislead the public in considering it another official BERETTA ecommerce dedicated to specific products; moreover it is a consolidated UDRP principle that an evident typo such as the addition of one letter is useful to trick Internet users.<\/p>\n
Finally, for all three disputed domain names, as consistently found in several decisions, the top level, in this case the new gTLD “.shop”, is in the view of the Complainant merely instrumental to the use of the Internet, so the disputed domain names remain confusingly similar despite their inclusion.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for the following reasons:<\/p>\n
- The Complainant (or the other related parties) has no relationship with the Respondent whatsoever.<\/p>\n
- The Respondent has never received any approval of the Complainant (or the other related parties), expressed or implied, to use its (their) trademarks or any other mark identical or confusingly similar to such marks, nor to register any domain name identical or confusingly similar to such marks.<\/p>\n
- There is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
- The disputed domain names are used to publish BERETTA trademarks and official images without authorization.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names <berretta.shop>, <berettagunaccessories.shop> and <berettagearhub.shop> have in the view of Complainant, been registered and are being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known prior trademarks. Given the distinctiveness and reputation of BERETTA’s business and trademarks worldwide, it is inconceivable in the view of the Complainant that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual knowledge of BERETTA and its rights in such marks. Thus, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his\/her website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants and their marks.<\/p>\n
Concerning the use in bad faith, the disputed domain names are used to publish, without any authorization from the Complainant – BERETTA trademarks and products bearing BERETTA trademarks; moreover, the Complainant states that those products are offered for sale at a very discounted price: the Complainant is therefore certain that those could not be legitimate offers. The Complainant also states that the lack of any clear information on the real seller and on the administrator of the website also proves this assumption. Finally, the website is used to publish third parties’ products and products bearing BERETTA competitor’s trademark.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it, the contentions of the Complainant are summarised above.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n
<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jan Schnedler" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-05-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant has registered trademarks with the wording \"Beretta\" in several countries, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n International registration No 746766 of November 8, 2010, in class 9;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Moreover, Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta is the owner of several top-level and country code top-level domain names, constituted by the verbal element <BERETTA>, among which we cite <beretta.com>, <beretta.it>, <berettadefense.com>.<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"berretta.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"berettagunaccessories.shop": "TRANSFERRED",
"berettagearhub.shop": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n