Lejdd.net

The timeline behind lejdd.net

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 Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Lina Boumediene Case No. D2025-5328 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hachette Filipacchi Presse, France, represented by Novagraaf France, France. The Respondent is Lina Boumediene, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lejdd.net> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 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 December 23, 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 the first amended Complaint on December 23, 2025. In response to the Center’s request to rectify certain details, the Complainant filed the second amended Complaint on December 24, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 24, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 14, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Elise Dufour as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 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, Hachette Filipacchi Presse, is a French joint stock company and the publisher of the well- known newspaper “Le Journal du Dimanche” (“LE JDD”), established in 1948. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions, notably: - French trademark JDD No. 92411901, registered on March 25, 1992, in class 16; - International trademark JDD (figurative) No. 788149, registered on May 22, 2002, in classes 16, 35 and 38, designating the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property and Switzerland; and - French trademark LE JOURNAL DU DIMANCHE No. 1463372, registered on October 22, 1986, in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42. The Complainant also owns various domain names, amongst which the domain name <lejdd.fr> registered on June 23, 2006, or <lejdd.com> registered on February 25, 2006. The disputed domain name was registered December 15, 2025. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that copied the look and feel of the Complainant’s website, including copying its “Legal Notice section”, and displayed the Complainant’s logo. The website at the disputed domain name also appears to have published articles containing false information/fake news. Upon discovery, the Complainant requested the deactivation of the website and subsequently filed a UDRP complaint seeking the transfer of the disputed domain name <lejdd.net>. 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. First, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the marks in which the Complainant has rights. Specifically, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known word marks JDD, LE JDD, and LE JOURNAL DU DIMANCHE (the latter reproduced on the website) in their entirety, with “LE JDD” being a widely recognized abbreviation of “Le Journal du Dimanche.” The Complainant holds multiple French and International trademark registrations for these marks, as well as the domain names <lejdd.fr> and <lejdd.com>, which are used for its official news website. The Complainant further notes that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks, including identical fonts, colors, and overall presentation, thereby reinforcing the likelihood of confusion among Internet users. Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not associated with the Complainant in any way and has never been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks or register the disputed domain name. The Complainant conducted a trademark search and found no evidence that the Respondent page 3 holds any rights in the marks JDD or LE JDD. According to the Complainant, there is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent has copied the Complainant’s website in its entirety, including the redirection of social media links and legal notices to the Complainant’s actual accounts, with the intent to mislead users and capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent’s use cannot be considered legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as it is intended to divert consumers who wish to access the Complainant’s services. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant points out that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks and domain names, given their long-standing and widespread use in France. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is an exact copy of the Complainant’s official site, reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks, layout, colors, and redirecting users to the Complainant’s social media accounts and legal notices. The Respondent’s website has also been used to publish false news, which could harm the reputation of both the Complainant and third parties. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s actions are intended to create confusion among Internet users, free-ride on the reputation of the Complainant’s marks, and disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Complainant took action by requesting the deactivation of the website from its hosting provider, which was granted, and subsequently filed this UDRP complaint to resolve the situation. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. For all these reasons, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. 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. See 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 Complainant has provided evidence of multiple French and International Trademark Registrations for JDD and LE JOURNAL DU DIMANCHE, as well as long-standing use of these marks in commerce. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark JDD in its entirety, preceded by the article “le”. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” does not impact the assessment of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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, the article “le”) 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. page 4 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. 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. The Complainant has provided evidence that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register the disputed domain name. There is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent has copied the Complainant’s website in its entirety, including the reproduction of trademarks and logo, layout, and color scheme, and the “Legal Notice” section of the Complainant’s site, with the intent to mislead users and capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name itself is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain names <lejdd.fr> and <lejdd.com>, differing only by the gTLD. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity – here, 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 Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Specifically, 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 marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The Panel finds the following facts particularly relevant: - The Complainant’s trademarks JDD and LE JOURNAL DU DIMANCHE are well known and have been in use for decades in France, with substantial reputation and recognition. page 5 - The Respondent could not plausibly have been unaware of the Complainant’s rights and reputation at the time of registration, especially as the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s official domain names and mark. - The Respondent’s website mirrored the Complainant’s legitimate website, including the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks, logo, layout, color scheme, and the “Legal Notice” section. - The Respondent’s website was used to publish news (which the Complainant claims were fake), which is precisely the business sector in which the Complainant operates. - The Respondent’s conduct demonstrates an intent to mislead Internet users, free-ride on the Complainant’s goodwill, and disrupt the Complainant’s business. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity – here, impersonation/passing off – constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. In light of this, it seems inconceivable that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name for a reason other than seeking to unduly benefit from the Complainant’s trademark and associated goodwill. 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 <lejdd.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Elise Dufour/ Elise Dufour Sole Panelist Date: February 15, 2026

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