Complainant states that “[a]part from the 130 physical WE stores, customers can also purchase WE branded fashion products online. For this purpose, WE owns three international websites www.wefashion.com, as well as various local ones such as www.wefashion.nl, www.wefashion.fr, www.wefashion.de, www.wefashion.at, www.wefashion.ch, and www.wefashion.be.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on June 2, 2025, and, according to the Complaint, is used in connection with “a fake website depicting the Complainant’s trademarks, logos, and products.” Complainant adds: “It appears undeniable that the Respondent, at the very least, attempts to illegally obtain private information of individuals, and therefore the Respondent cannot demonstrate any use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.” In support thereof, Complainant has provided multiple screenshots from a website associated with the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
Complainant states that it sent a demand letter to Respondent on September 3, 2025 (a copy of which was included with the Complaint), which Complainant says “has remained unanswered.”<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the WE FASHION Trademark because the Disputed Domain Name “fully incorporates the WE Trademarks” and “differs by the adjunction of the geographical term ‘-nl’, which refers to the Netherlands – the country where the Complainant’s headquarters is located. Therefore, the addition of ‘NL’ aggravates the misleading character of the domain name, as it falsely suggests a legitimate connection with the Complainant’s official Dutch operations and its website www.wefashion.nl.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Complainant never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred, or authorized the Respondent to register or use the WE Trademarks”; “Complainant affirms that there is no relationship between Trend Fin B.V. or its affiliated companies and the Respondent, which would entitle the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks”; the Disputed Domain Name “resolves to a fake website depicting the Complainant’s trademarks, logos, and products”; and “Respondent does not appear to be known by all or part of the [Disputed] Domain Name, nor to have acquired any trademark rights on the sign ‘WE’ or ‘WE FASHION’.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, “Respondent is offering unauthorized products that cannot be verified as being legitimate”; “the website linked to the [Disputed] Domain Name has already confused internet users into erroneously thinking that the Respondent is the Complainant or an affiliated company, when in fact no such relationship exists” because “Complainant has received complaints from consumers fooled by the prominent use of the WE Trademarks and the Complainant’s copyrights, which led them to believe that it is the Complainant’s official website”; and Respondent failed to reply to Complainant’s demand letter.<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant states that it is “the exclusive owner of the WE Trademarks registered and used throughout the world since 1962, notably for clothing and fashion accessories.” In support thereof, Complainant has provided documentation for a number of trademarks, including Benelux Reg. No. 864969 for WE FASHION (registered September 10, 2009) for use in connection with clothing; Int’l Reg. No. 1223927 for WE FASHION (registered May 20, 2014) for use in connection with clothing; and UK Reg. No. UK00801223927 for WE FASHION (registered September 29, 2015) for use in connection with clothing. These registrations are referred to herein as the “WE FASHION Trademark.”<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "wefashion-nl.com": "CANCELLED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }