Tfou.xyz

The timeline behind tfou.xyz

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 Television Francaise 1 v. SOUFIANE EL GAAMOUSS Case No. D2025-4576 1. The Parties The Complainant is Television Francaise 1, France, represented by AARPI Scan Avocats, France. The Respondent is SOUFIANE EL GAAMOUSS, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tfou.xyz> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 5, 2025. On November 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 5, 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, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 10, 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 November 13, 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 December 3, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 24, 2025. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on December 30, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant operates a French commercial TV network, commonly known as TF1. It was founded in 1974, and since 2007 broadcasts a daily children’s television show named TFOU. The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations incorporating the mark TFOU, including for example: - France trademark registration number 3555553 for a combined mark TFOU, registered on July 18, 2008 in numerous International Classes; and - International trademark registration number 751853 for a figurative mark TFOU!, registered on August 1, 2000 in numerous International Classes. The Complainant’s trademark TFOU has been found by a previous panel under the UDRP to have attained the status of a well-known trademark (Television Francaise 1 v. Hokdk, heheujkkj, WIPO Case No. D2022- 4439). The Complainant registered the domain names <tfou.com> on March 9, 2000, and <tfou.fr> on June 3, 2003. The disputed domain name was registered on October 11, 2025. The disputed domain name appears to have resolved to a root folder index page, and as date of this Decision does not to resolve to any active website or content. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that it is a leading European production and broadcast company, and that its principal website receives an average of 20 million visitors per month. With regard specifically to its TFOU program, it refers to websites at “www.tf1.fr/tf1/tfou-danimation” and “www.tfoumax.fr”, which include its program content. It operates TFOU branded channels on YouTube on which it claims over 397,000 followers, Facebook with over 252,000 followers, and Instagram with 69,100 followers. It also operates a leisure park for children named TFOU Parc. The Complainant offers evidence that a Google search against the term TFOU returns results relating exclusively (or overwhelmingly) to the Complainant and its business. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its TFOU trademark. It contends that the disputed domain name incorporates that trademark in full, and that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.xyz” should be disregarded for the purposes of the relevant comparison. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has no relationship with the Respondent and has never authorized it to use its TFOU trademark, that the Respondent has no independent trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name, which resolves only to a root directory page. page 3 The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that, in view of the well-known nature of its TFOU trademark, and the lack of any legitimate connection between the Respondent and that trademark, it should be presumed that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights, and motivated opportunistic bad faith (e.g. Sanofi-aventis, Aventis Inc. v. Hostmaster, Domain Park Limited, WIPO Case No. D2007-1641). The Complainant observes that the disputed domain name has not resolved to any active website, and adds that Mail Exchange (MX) records have been configured upon the disputed domain name, which gives rise to the possibility of the disputed domain name being used for the purpose of email fraud (the Panel notes, however, that the Complainant does not specify whether the MX records were specifically requested by the Respondent or supplied as part of the Domain Name System provider’s standard package). The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it is the owner of registered trademark rights in the mark TFOU. The disputed domain name is identical to the textual element of that trademark, save for the gTLD “.xyz”, which may typically be ignored for the purposes of comparison under the first element of the Policy. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. While it is arguable that the disputed domain name comprises an acronym, the Respondent has provided no reason for its choice of that acronym, or how it might be used for a purpose independent of, and not to target, the Complainant’s trademark rights (see e.g. section 2.10 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). page 4 The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark TFOU to be both distinctive in nature and to be well-known in the field of children’s television programming. The registration of the disputed domain name, which is effectively identical to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore requires an explanation on the part of the Respondent, which has not been forthcoming. The Panel infers in the circumstances, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s TFOU trademark, and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the commercial goodwill attaching to that trademark. While no active use appears to have been made of the disputed domain name, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading, and is likely to confuse Internet users into believing that it must be owned or operated by, or otherwise legitimately affiliated with, the Complainant. While it is unclear what specific use the Respondent may have intended to make of the disputed domain name (and the Panel makes no finding in respect of the configuration of MX records) the Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 disputed domain name <tfou.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. /Steven A. Maier/ Steven A. Maier Sole Panelist Date: January 7, 2026

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