{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107881", "time_of_filling": "2025-09-15 10:43:07", "domain_names": [ "loropianausa.shop" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Loro Piana S.p.A. " ], "complainant_representative": "Claudio Tamburrino (Barzanò & Zanardo S.p.A.)", "respondent": [ " tu he" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, Loro Piana S.p.A., is a renowned Italian company engaged internationally in the provision of a diversified range of activities under the brand LORO PIANA, specialising in textile manufacturing and ready-to-wear clothing.<\/p>\n

As well as the LORO PIANA trademark, the Complainant owns the domain name <loropiana.com> which it registered on September 14, 2001 and which it uses in its business to promote its products under its LORO PIANA trademark and brand.<\/p>\n

It has come to the notice of the Complainant that on June 7, 2025, without any permission and many years after the Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights, the Respondent registered the domain name <loropianausa.shop> (\"the Disputed Domain Name\") which includes the LORO PIANA trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the letters “usa” which signify the United States of America and also the Top Level Domain “.shop.” The Respondent has then caused the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that uses the LORO PIANA trademark, offers for sale products that purport to be genuine LORO PIANA products at substantial discounts and invites users to “Sign up” and provide their e-mail addresses.<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name and the website to which it resolves pose a very concerning threat to the Complainant’s business and the LORO PIANA trademark and brand. That is because the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name and the use made of it by the Respondent constitute an infringement of the LORO PIANA trademark, give rise to a likelihood of confusion in the minds of internet users between the trademark and the Disputed Domain Name and pose the threat of potentially improper use that might be made of the Disputed Domain Name in the future if the Respondent retains it.        <\/p>\n

The Complainant maintains that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark, that registering the Disputed Domain Name and having it resolve to the aforesaid website cannot give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name and that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

The Complainant has therefore brought this proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy to obtain a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to itself and thus the cessation of the improper use which it submits the Respondent has made of it.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions.<\/p>\n

(i) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.<\/p>\n

The Complainant owns the trademarks for LORO PIANA set out above and which were registered many years before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on June 7, 2025.<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name <loropianausa.shop> incorporates the Complainant’s LORO PIANA trademark in its entirety with the addition of the letters “usa” which signify the United States of America and the Top Level Domain “.shop.” The trademark is clearly recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name. The addition of the letters “usa”, signifying the United States of America, enhances the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark because internet users would read the Disputed Domain Name as invoking the Complainant, its trademark and brand, and genuine products offered under the trademark that could be acquired through the Complainant’s shop in the United States of America.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LORO PIANA trademark.<\/p>\n

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

As is universally accepted, the Complainant is first required to make out a prima facie <\/em>case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and, if such a prima facie<\/em> case is made out, the onus of proof is then transferred to the Respondent to rebut any such prima facie<\/em> case that has been established.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that, for the following reasons, it can make out its prima facie <\/em>case.<\/p>\n

First, the Complainant has not given any permission or authority to the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name and there is no affiliation, business or other relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name and caused it to resolve to a commercial website that prominently displays the Complainant’s LORO PIANA trademark, and offers alleged LORO PIANA products at substantial discounts, being products that are probably counterfeit.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, the Respondent has also used the Disputed Domain Name to solicit personal information from internet users who visit its aforesaid website.<\/p>\n

Fourthly, the use to which the Respondent has put the Disputed Domain Name is not a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services within the meaning of Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

Fifthly, the aforesaid use of the Disputed Domain Name shows that it has been used by the Respondent for a typical scammer website.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Complainant submits that it has made out a prima facie <\/em>case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits on the following grounds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

First, the Respondent has taken the Complainant’s well-known LORO PIANA trademark and without permission or authority has entirely incorporated it in the Disputed Domain Name which is virtually identical and certainly confusingly similar to the trademark.<\/p>\n

Secondly, the Respondent has caused the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that offers for sale at substantial discounts products that are purported to be genuine LORO PIANA products, but which in reality are probably counterfeit and the website also offers numerous products of the Complainant’s competitors under their own brand names.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, the Respondent’s website actively solicits visitors to its website to “Sign up” and provide their e-mail addresses, in all probability as part of a phishing scheme.<\/p>\n

Fourthly, the Respondent has clearly sought to generate internet traffic to its website by misleading third parties into a false belief that it is operated or authorized by the Complainant, and for an illegitimate and probably fraudulent purposes.<\/p>\n

Fifthly, the Disputed Domain Name, and the use to which it has been put, are calculated to generate confusion within the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

The Complainant thus submits that it has established all of the elements it is required to prove under the Policy and that it is therefore entitled to the relief that it seeks.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT<\/p>\n

The Respondent is in default and has not filed a Response in this proceeding.<\/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": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Neil Brown" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The evidence has established that the Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of registered trademarks including:<\/p>\n