Eu-braun.shop

The timeline behind eu-braun.shop

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBI TRATI O N AND MEDI ATI ON CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION The Procter & Gamble Company, Braun GmbH v. Mfvcrtinn Parkerc Case No. D2025-1041 1. The Parties The Complainants are The Procter & Gamble Company, United States of America, and Braun GmbH, Germany, represented by Studio Barbero S.p.A., Italy. The Respondent is Mfvcrtinn Parkerc, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <eu-braun.shop> is registered with West263 International Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2025. On March 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 19, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 21, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 March 25, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 19, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Gilberto Martins de Almeida as the sole panelist in this matter on April 30, 2025. 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 Complainants are The Procter & Gamble Company and Braun GmbH ( hereafter jointly referred to as “the Complainant”) , both globally known companies, who operate in the field of health and hygiene products, the former being the mother company of the latter. As for the Complainant’s relevant trademarks, it owns the International Trademark Registration No. 400415 for BRAUN, since May 23, 1973. Regarding the disputed domain name, <eu-braun.shop>, it was registered on January 9, 2025. As claimed and supported by the evidence in the case file, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a commercial website imitating the layout of the Complainant’s official website, featuring the BRAUN mark, offering purported BRAUN products for sale at discounted prices, and displaying information on the BRAUN designers which is very likely taken from the Complainant’s website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to imitate the Complainant and purportedly sell its products without a license. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the second Complainant, Braun GmbH. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. Although the addition of other terms here, “eu”, and the use of the Top-Level Domain (TLD) “. shop”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term and the TLD page 3 does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here claimed, impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here claimed, impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <eu-braun.shop> be transferred to the second Complainant, Braun GmbH. /Gilberto Martins de Almeida/ Gilberto Martins de Almeida Sole Panelist Date: May 16, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.