Fragonardpro.com

The timeline behind fragonardpro.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 Les Parfumeries Fragonard v. Hierro Mela Case No. D2025-5335 1. The Parties The Complainant is Les Parfumeries Fragonard, France, represented by MIIP – Made in IP, France. The Respondent is Hierro Mela, United States of America (“US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fragonardpro.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Cosmotown, Inc. (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 23, 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 an amended Complaint on December 26, 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 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 19, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Monica Novac as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 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 is a French company established in 1926. The Complainant manufactures perfumes, cosmetics, fashion items and homeware, which are commercialized worldwide directly through stores and corners under the “Fragonard” commercial name, as well as by means of mail-order catalogues and via the online store available on the website “www.fragonard.com”. The Complainant’s products can also be found in prestigious hotels all over the world as gifts for the clients, and via a strong and international distribution network. The Complainant owns several FRAGONARD trademarks worldwide, including the following: - US Trademark Registration No. 2026820 for FRAGONARD (word), registered on December 31, 1996, for goods in class 3; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 010225233 for FRAGONARD (word), registered on February 20, 2012, for goods and services in classes 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, 22, 27, 34, 39, 40, 43 and 45; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 012235941 for FRAGONARD (word), registered on March 12, 2014, for goods and services in classes 3, 4 and 35; and - European Union Trademark Registration No. 018776308 for FRAGONARD (word), registered on March 8, 2023, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 35, 36, 39, 41 and 43. The Complainant contends that it has been using the FRAGONARD trademark for many years and this name has gained worldwide recognition in the cosmetic field. The Complainant also holds numerous domain names comprising the FRAGONARD trademark, all redirecting to the Complainant’s main website at “www.fragonard.com”. The Respondent is Hierro Mela, reportedly located in the US. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 8, 2025. As of the date of both filing the Complaint and this Decision, when accessed by the Panel, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a webpage which presents itself as an online shop offering products such as perfumes, cosmetics, accessories, etc., bearing the FRAGONARD mark, and also using images and product descriptions similar to those found on the Complainant’s official 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 Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRAGONARD trademark; page 3 - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and - the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and it is being used in bad faith. 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. The entirety of the FRAGONARD trademark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that the FRAGONARD trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Disputed Domain Name also contains the term “pro”, however the Panel finds that the addition of this element does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Further to all the above, 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. It is accepted by the Panel that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant and that the Complainant has not authorized nor licensed the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark in any way. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel is of the opinion that the composition of the Disputed Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Note has also been taken that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a webpage which presents itself as an online shop offering products such as perfumes, cosmetics, accessories, etc., bearing the FRAGONARD trademark, by unlawfully using images and product descriptions similar to those found on the Complainant’s official website. In this sense, it has been established that “respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner; the correlation between a domain name and the complainant’s mark is often central to this inquiry”. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5. In view of the above, the Panel considers that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the ultimate intent to mislead the Internet users and to erroneously make them believe that the Disputed Domain Name is operated by or associated with the Complainant. Moreover, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, coupled with its use as explained above, signals the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s mark. Even if the Respondent was offering the goods marketed by the Complainant, the Respondent would not make fair use of the Complainant’s trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. UDRP panels have recognized limited rights for resellers or distributors to nominally use a trademark for its source-identifying function, and such fair use is qualified under the so-called “Oki Data test” as per section 2.8.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. However, in the present matter, there is no evidence that the Respondent would meet the requirements of the “Oki Data test”. Moreover, 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. Further to the above, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent does not use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name as per the Policy. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel refers to its considerations under section 6.B. above. 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. page 5 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant registered and used its FRAGONARD trademark long before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. In view of the Complainant’s international presence, the worldwide recognition of its trademark, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, as well as its use (as previously explained), it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark and business when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel considers that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to mislead the Internet users into believing that the website at the Disputed Domain Name is affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant, which is a clear proof of bad faith. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. In view of all the above, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent’s intention was to attract Internet users to the webpage at the Disputed Domain Name, by creating a likelihood of confusion and making them believe that said webpage is held, controlled or related to the Complainant, for the Respondent’s commercial gain. 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. The Panel also notes the Respondent’s failure to submit a response in the present proceeding, which may be considered as a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. Further to all the above, 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 <fragonardpro.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Monica Novac/ Monica Novac Sole Panelist Date: February 5, 2026

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