Commande-but.store

The timeline behind commande-but.store

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.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION BUT International v. sophie tannier Case No. D2025-1938 1. The Parties The Complainant is BUT International, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is sophie tannier, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <commande-but.store> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2025. On May 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 16, 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 May 16, 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 amended Complaint on May 19, 2025. 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 May 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 17, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 23, 2025. The Center appointed Alexandre Nappey as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Created in 1972, BUT INTERNATIONAL, operating under the business name BUT, is a French brand of stores specializing in household equipment. With over 340 stores in France and 9,000 employees, BUT INTERNATIONAL generates sales of 2,4 EUR billion and has become one of the largest French furniture operator. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BUT, among which: - International trademark registration BUT n°974306 registered on December 28, 2007; - French trademark BUT n°98756795 registered on October 28, 1998. The Complainant also owns many domain names comprising the trademark BUT, such as: - <but-corporate.fr> registered on January 21, 2022; - <but.fr> registered on November 11, 1996. The disputed domain name <commande-but.store> was registered on August 22, 2024 and currently resolves a parking page. Besides, it has been used for a phishing scheme. 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. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <commande-but.store> is confusingly similar to its trademark BUT as it is identically contained. The addition of the generic term “commande” (French for “order”) does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BUT. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BUT or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Besides, the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. Indeed, the Respondent attempted to pass off as one of the Complainant’s employees. Using the disputed domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy, paragraph 4 (c)(i), nor a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii). B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, the Complainant has the burden of proof to make its case in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and to demonstrate that: (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. However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a Party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. Having considered the Parties’ submissions, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules and applicable law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above-mentioned elements are the following: 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. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “commande” (French word for “order”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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. page 4 Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: phishing and 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant has shown that its BUT trademark has been registered and used for years and enjoys goodwill in the field of household equipment in France. In addition, the additional term “commande” refers directly to the Complainant’s business, which increases the confusion with the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not reasonably be unaware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name, and the Panel cannot conceive any use that the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name that would not interfere with the Complainant’s trademark rights. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed phishing and impersonation 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. Here the Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to set email address and send fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant’s identity. 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 <commande-but.store> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alexandre Nappey/ Alexandre Nappey Sole Panelist Date: July 11, 2025

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