The Complainant is Tecnica Group S.p.A., an Italian company active in the field of footwear and winter sports equipment. The Complainant manufactures, markets and sells footwear and sporting goods worldwide under several brands, including goods marketed under the MOON BOOT Trademark.<\/p>\n
MOON BOOT products were first created in the early 1970s as après-ski wear. Inspired by the Apollo 11 moon landing and the shape of the astronauts' boots, the Complainant's founder, Giancarlo Zanatta, designed and developed the original MOON BOOT. Since then, more than 25 million pairs have been sold worldwide and the products have become iconic in the field of winter footwear.<\/p>\n
The Complainant's products have received extensive international media coverage and have been promoted and worn by numerous celebrities, athletes and influencers. Over the years, the Complainant has collaborated with several well-known fashion and luxury brands. As a result, the MOON BOOT Trademark enjoys a significant reputation in connection with the Complainant's products.<\/p>\n
The Complainant markets and sells products bearing the MOON BOOT Trademark through its official website and through an extensive network of distributors and retailers in numerous countries.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also maintains an active presence on social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and Weibo, through dedicated accounts relating to products marketed under the MOON BOOT Trademark.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on January 2, 2026.<\/p>\n
The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain names previously resolved to websites dedicated to the sale of products bearing the MOON BOOT Trademark. The websites displayed similar layouts and offered for sale products presented as MOON BOOT products.<\/p>\n
Following the discovery of the disputed domain names and their use, the Complainant sent cease and desist letters to the Respondent through the Registrar. The Respondent did not reply.<\/p>\n
At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names were inactive.<\/p>\n
Following the submission of the Complaint, and upon request from the CAC, the Registrar confirmed that both disputed domain names are registered by the same underlying registrant.<\/p>\n
The Respondent did not submit a Response.<\/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.<\/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
The Complaint concerns two disputed domain names. The Complainant requested consolidation of the proceedings on the ground that both disputed domain names are under common control.<\/p>\n
The Panel notes that the disputed domain names were registered on the same date with the same Registrar and were used in connection with websites displaying similar layouts and offering products presented as products bearing the MOON BOOT Trademark.<\/p>\n
More importantly, following the submission of the Complaint, the Registrar confirmed that both disputed domain names are registered by the same underlying registrant.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are under common control. The Panel further considers that consolidation is fair and procedurally efficient and does not prejudice the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Panel grants the Complainant's request for consolidation.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Ivett Paulovics" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for MOON BOOT, including:<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns several domain names incorporating the wording MOON BOOT, including <moonboot.com>, registered since 2 March 2011, which resolves to the Complainant's official website.<\/p>\n
The above-mentioned trademark rights are hereinafter collectively referred to as the MOON BOOT Trademark.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "moonbigsaleca.com": "TRANSFERRED", "moonbooteu.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }