Action-france.com

The timeline behind action-france.com

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 Action Holding B.V. v. leo damaut Case No. D2025-5288 1. The Parties The Complainant is Action Holding B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the). The Respondent is leo damaut, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <action-france.com> is registered with Gandi SAS (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 18, 2025. On December 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 19, 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 (Ile -de-France) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 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 December 22, 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 December 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 22, 2026. On January 26, 2026, the Center informed the parties in French and in English that the language of the registration agreement for the dispute domain name is French. On January 27, 2026, the Complainant requested that page 2 the proceedings continue in both English and French. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. The Center appointed Mehmet Polat Kalafatoğlu as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 2026. 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, Action Holding B.V., is a Dutch-based discount store chain that offers a wide range of affordable products, including household items, groceries, beauty products, toys, office supplies, and seasonal items. The Complainant operates in several European countries, including in France, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant notes that it has been active in the French market since 2012 and operates hundreds of stores throughout the country. The Complainant submits that it holds 76 trademarks for the ACTION sign registered in different territories, including the following: - the Benelux trademark No. 615613 for ACTION (word & device mark), registered on July 18, 1997, in class 35; and - the European Union trademark No. 011510575 for ACTION, registered on July 2, 2015, in classes 16, 21, and 35. The Complainant owns the domain name <action.com> and uses it to promote its products and services. The disputed domain name was registered on November 10, 2025. It resolves to a parked 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. The Complainant’s contentions regarding the three elements under the Policy are summarized below. First, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant, inter alia, asserts that the Respondent does not have any connection or affiliation with the Complainant nor has he received any license or consent to use the trademark ACTION in the disputed domain name. The Complainant also asserts that it is aware of instances of fraudulent use of an email address associated with the disputed domain name, in which the Respondent impersonates the Complainant. Third, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that the ACTION trademark and the Complainant’s official domain name significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name, and as a result of its extensive and continuous use, the ACTION trademark has become widely known, particularly in France, where the Respondent is located. Lastly, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been used to send fraudulent emails to mislead consumers, obtain fraudulent payments, and collect sensitive information. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of Proceedings The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is French. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the proceedings continue in both English and French. The Complainant also presented several reasons, including the submission of an email written in English, suggesting that the Respondent understands English, and the translation of the Complaint and all supporting documents into French would be disproportionate and cost excessive. The Panel particularly notes that the Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Substantive Issues 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 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, a hyphen and “france”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such terms 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. page 4 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. 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. In this regard, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the ACTION trademark or to seek registration of the disputed domain name incorporating the said trademark. In addition, nothing in the record suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Lastly, according to the Complaint the disputed domain name has been used to send fraudulent emails, and this has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed phishing and impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Under these circumstances, the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website does not change the Panel’s determination under the second element of the Policy. By failing to submit a Response, 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. Based on the available record, 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel considers the following points: the registration dates of the ACTION trademark and the disputed domain name; in addition to the trademark registration covering France, the significant presence of the Complainant’s stores in France, where the Respondent is located; and, the composition of the disputed domain name, which reproduces the ACTION trademark with the addition of the geographical term “france”. As a result, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. The Panel also considers the Complainant’s allegations that the disputed domain name has been used to send fraudulent emails by impersonating the Complainant. 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. Based on the above, the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked website does not change the Panel’s determination under the third element of the Policy. page 5 Under these circumstances, the Panel considers the Respondent’s failure to submit a response as a further element supporting the finding of bad faith registration and use. Based on the available record, 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 <action-france.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mehmet Polat Kalafatoglu/ Mehmet Polat Kalafatoglu Sole Panelist Date: February 11, 2026

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