{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107810",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-08-11 10:44:40",
    "domain_names": [
        "xn--balencaga-0pb.com "
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BALENCIAGA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Renata Da Motta Garcia (INSIDERS)",
    "respondent": [
        "Melissa Hartfield"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that it is a well-known company in the luxury fashion industry existing since 1917, with over 300 stores all over the world.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant promotes and offers its products for sale under the trademark \"BALENCIAGA\" both online and offline, including via its main website at &lt;balenciaga.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered on January 24, 2025.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name currently does not resolve to any active webpage. It used to redirect to Complainant's own website at &lt;balenciaga.com&gt; in the past.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its \"BALENCIAGA\" trademark as it contains the Complainant's trademark in its entirety with a misspelling.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and was not authorized to use the registered \"BALENCIAGA\" mark.<\/p>\n<p>The Whois records show no business name that may justify Respondent's interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant further states that the Respondent is not an authorized retailer of the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name previously redirected to the Complainant's own website and this does not create rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant's submissions on the bad faith element are extremely short.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that it is a well-known company that existed since 1917 and the disputed domain name used to redirect to the Complainant's own website at &lt;balenciaga.com&gt;.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant alleges that the Respondent took unfair advantage of the Complainant's mark by creating an unauthorized redirection to the official \"BALENCIAGA\" website via the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the \"Factual Background\" section above<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-09-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant relies on the following registered trademark:<\/p>\n<p>- International trademark registration (IR) under the \"Madrid\" system no. 397506 \"BALENCIAGA\" (word), protected <em>inter alia<\/em>, in Armenia, Australia, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Kazakhstan, Poland, Singapore, Russia, Vietnam, Ukraine and Norway, registration date is April 13, 1973.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "xn--balencaga-0pb.com ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}