Westmore · UDRP DecisionThefrankie-shop.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <thefrankie-shop.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s THE FRANKIE SHOP trademark, accepted the Complainant’s unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and found bad-faith registration and use based on deliberate appropriation of the mark and use of the domain for a website offering competing jewellery bearing that mark and implying a nonexistent affiliation.
The timeline behind thefrankie-shop.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 thefrankie-shop.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case presents a direct appropriation pattern: a domain closely reproducing the trademark was used for a competing retail website whose products displayed the same mark. The Panel treated that combination as evidence of deliberate targeting, implied affiliation, and bad-faith commercial use. The case also illustrates the procedural effect of an unrebutted prima facie showing under the rights-or-legitimate-interests element.
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 The Frankie Shop LLC v. Meng Liu, Bang Bu Shi Ju Shui Tan Shang Mao You Xian Gong Si Case No. D2021-3405 1. The Parties The Complainant is The Frankie Shop LLC, United States of America, represented by Coblence Avocats, France. The Respondent is Meng Liu, Bang Bu Shi Ju Shui Tan Shang Mao You Xian Gong Si, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <thefrankie-shop.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 14, 2021. On October 15, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 18, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 November 3, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 23, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 29, 2021. The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on December 17, 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 Complainant trades in the marketing of clothes, bags, cosmetics and jewellery, under the trade name THE FRANKIE SHOP, which has been registered with the New York State Department of State since May 4, 2015, and with the Paris Trade and Companies Register since February 10, 2017. The Complainant registered the domain name <thefrankieshop.com> on September 17, 2014. Details of trademark registrations in the Complainant’s name have been supplied to the Panel. These include French registration number 4762800, of the trademark THE FRANKIE SHOP, in classes 3, 4, 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35, registered on May 4, 2021. The disputed domain name was registered on September 19, 2021, and resolves to a website, which resolves to a website offering for sale products (jewellery) competing with products traded in by the Complainant. The jewellery items offered for sale on this website are marked with the Complainant’s THE FRANKIE SHOP trademark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its THE FRANKIE SHOP trademark, in which its FRANKIE SHOP trademark is clearly recognizable. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that it has never granted the Respondent permission to use its THE FRANKIE SHOP in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise, and that the use of the disputed domain name as described above does not constitute a bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith, in connection with the website, as described above. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated sufficient trademark rights to its THE FRANKIE SHOP trademark for the purposes of these proceedings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) may generally be disregarded when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. The Panel considers the gTLD “.com” to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and finds that it may be disregarded here. The Complainant’s THE FRANKIE SHOP trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, rendering the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the mark, and the Panel so finds. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in connection with the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, in connection with the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstance of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s THE FRANKIE SHOP trademark was deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, in connection with the disputed domain name and so finds. It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a disputed domain name in connection with a website offering goods in competition with those of the Complainant constitutes use of a disputed domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the use of the website operated under the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website in which products competing with those of the Complainant are offered for sale, these products bearing the Complainant’s THE FRANKIE SHOP trademark, thus implying some non-existent affiliation with the Complainant, is a clear demonstration of trading in bad faith, and the Panel, accordingly, finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, and so finds. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 disputed domain name <thefrankie-shop.com> be transferred to the Complainant. George R. F. Souter Sole Panelist Date: December 31, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around thefrankie-shop.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.