Westmore · UDRP DecisionLaforetfrance-invest.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <laforetfrance-invest.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LAFORET trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. Decisive circumstances included the incorporation of LAFORET in its entirety, PPC links targeting the Complainant’s sector, and fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant and one of its employees.
The timeline behind laforetfrance-invest.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind laforetfrance-invest.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how fraudulent email impersonation and sector-targeted PPC use can independently reinforce findings under both the legitimate-interests and bad-faith elements. It also shows that a respondent cannot avoid a bad-faith finding merely because the website becomes inactive before the decision when the record establishes earlier abusive use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Laforet France v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Pierre Simon, Abertis Park Case No. D2021-1019 1. The Parties The Complainant is Laforet France, France, represented by Cabinet Bouchara, France. The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Pierre Simon, Abertis Park, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <laforetfrance-invest.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2021. On April 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 14, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 14, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 12, 2021. The Center appointed Vincent Denoyelle as the sole panelist in this matter on May 19, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The following facts are based on the submissions in the Complaint and the Annexes to the Complaint. The Complainant is a French real estate agency franchise network providing services in the fields of sale, purchase and rental management, co-ownership management, and commercial real estate. The Complainant is the owner of several trade marks for LAFORET including the following: - European Union Trade Mark LAFORET No. 3714763, filed on March 15, 2004 and registered on December 22, 2005. The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names reflecting its trade mark including <laforet.com>. The Domain Name was registered on March 18, 2021 and used to resolve to a webpage containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. The Complainant provided evidence that the Domain Name was used to send fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant. At the time of this Decision, the Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the LAFORET trade mark in which the Complainant has rights as the Domain Name incorporates the entire LAFORET trade mark followed by the descriptive terms “france-invest” and that such addition to the Domain Name does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that no license or authorisation has been granted to the Respondent to register or use the Domain Name. Finally, the Complainant submits that the use of the Domain Name to facilitate fraudulent activities such as phishing cannot be considered bona fide , legitimate or fair. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark and the Respondent could not have ignored the Complainant’s trade mark LAFORET and that it registered the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith as the Complainant has provided evidence showing that the Domain Name was used to point to a Registrar parking page with PPC links to third party websites including competitors of the Complainant and also evidence of the use of the Domain Name in connection with fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to prevail the Complainant must substantiate that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met, namely: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the case of default by a party, as is the case here, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules makes it clear that if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent whereby the Respondent did not object to any of the contentions from the Complainant, the Panel will have to base its decision on the basis of the Complaint and supporting Annexes. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar In light of the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has substantiated that it holds valid trade mark rights in LAFORET, which is reproduced in its entirety in the Domain Name. The second point that has to be considered is whether the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark LAFORET in which the Complainant has rights. At the second level, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s LAFORET trade mark in its entirety with the addition of the geographical term “france”, a hyphen “-” and the dictionary term “invest”. The terms added to the Domain Name do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trade mark and the Domain Name. Then there is the addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. As is generally accepted, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” is merely a technical registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element of confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out relevant circumstances that could demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, namely: Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate [the respondent’s] rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) ha[s] been commonly known by the domain name, even if [the respondent] ha[s] acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) [the respondent] is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. Numerous previous panels have found under the UDRP that once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing evidence of its rights or interests in the domain name. Having reviewed the Complainant’s assertions and evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has stated that it does not know the Respondent and that it has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to make any use of its trade mark LAFORET. There is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. The current absence of use of the Domain Name and the past use of the Domain Name to point to a Registrar parking page with PPC links targeting the Complainant’s sector and to facilitate fraudulent activities in the form of phishing emails cannot be considered bona fide , legitimate or fair. Furthermore, the nature of the Domain Name, comprising the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety in combination with additional terms, carries a risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a number of relevant non-exhaustive circumstances, which can be deemed to constitute evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, namely: (i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or acquired [a disputed] domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location. Given the circumstances described in the Complaint and the documentary evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. The Domain Name reproduces the exact LAFORET trade mark of the Complainant and this cannot be a coincidence given the overall circumstances of the present case including: (i) the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s LAFORET trade mark in France where the Respondent is based, as substantiated by the Complainant, (ii) the fact that the Domain Name was registered relatively recently and many years after the registration of the trade mark LAFORET and, (iii) the choice of dictionary terms added to the trade mark LAFORET in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith. As for use of the Domain Name in bad faith, given the circumstances described in the Complaint and the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel considers that the Domain Name is used in bad faith. The Domain Name appears to be passively held at the time of the Decision. Passive use itself would not cure the Respondent’s bad faith given the overall circumstances here, specifically the previous use of the Domain Name, the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s LAFORET trade mark, especially in the country where the Respondent appears to be based and the Respondent’s default to file a Response. Furthermore, the past use of the Domain Name to point to a Registrar parking page with PPC links targeting the Complainant’s sector and also in connection with fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant and one of its employees to deceive Internet users are very persuasive and clear evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith use of the Domain Name. The fact that the Respondent chose not to object to the Complainant’s assertions can only reinforce the Panel’s view that the Domain Name is used in bad faith. Finally, this is further supported by the fact that the Respondent deliberately chose to conceal its identity by means of a privacy protection service, which, in the circumstances, is an additional indication of the Respondent’s bad faith and intent to use the Domain Name in a way which may be abusive or otherwise detrimental to the Complainant and its rights. Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is also being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <laforetfrance-invest.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Vincent Denoyelle Sole Panelist Date: May 28, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around laforetfrance-invest.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.