Filimed.com

The timeline behind filimed.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 Laboratoires Fill-Med v. 周光国 (Zhou Guang Guo) Case No. D2026-0189 1. The Parties The Complainant is Laboratoires Fill-Med, France, represented by Ebrand France, France. The Respondent is 周光国 (Zhou Guang Guo), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <filimed.com> is registered with DNSPod, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 16, 2026. On January 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 20, 2026, 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 January 21, 2026, 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 in English on January 21, 2026. On January 21, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On January 21, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 13, 2026. The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 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 specializes in cosmetics and aesthetic medicine, and has since 1978 developed, manufactured, and marketed cosmetic and anti-ageing products for aesthetic medicine professionals. The Complainant’s business spans across over 80 countries including China. The Complainant is the owner of the FILL-MED trade mark, which has been registered. The Complainant’s FILL-MED trade mark registrations include: (i) International registration No. 1351198, registered on March 13, 2017; and (ii) European Union registration No. 016453235, registered on July 6, 2017. The Complainant is also the owner of more than 130 domain names composed of the FILL-MED trade mark, such as: (a) <fillmed.com>, registered on October 25, 2017; (b) <fill-med.com>, registered on October 25, 2017; and (c) <fi ilmed.com>, registered on May 3, 2022. The main domain name <filmed.com> is used for the Complainant’s official website, presenting its brand expertise and philosophy. Many subdomain names, such as <fr.fillmed.com>, resolve to the Complainant’s subsidiary website presenting the brand’s product ranges. The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2025 and resolves to a mirror site, reproducing the Complainant’s website, trade marks, and copyright-protected photos. 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. Firstly, t he Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FILL-MED trade mark as it incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety, with the only alteration being the substitution of the letter “l” with the letter “i”. The disputed domain name contains an obvious spelling mistake. These letters are highly similar when used in lowercase and uppercase. page 3 Secondly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known as “Fill-med” or “filimed.com”, and has not acquired any trade mark rights in the FILL-MED/FILIMED trade mark. The Complainant’s registration of the FILL- MED trade mark and domain names precedes the date of registration of the disputed domain name. Further, there is no company which has been registered in China under the corporate name “Filimed”. A Google search for the term “filimed” surfaces links to the Complainant’s FILL-MED trade mark. The Respondent therefore ought to have been aware of the Complainant and its trade mark when he registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s mirror website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Thirdly, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or other location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s well-known FILL-MED trade mark, with a substitution of one letter “l” with the letter “i”, which is confusing to Internet users. The mirror website is also intended to mislead Internet users. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. 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 language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in English, which implies a fairly high level of comprehension of the English language by the Respondent. To translate the Complainant into Chinese would incur substantial translation costs and delay the proceeding. This situation would be prejudicial to the Complainant as the disputed domain name is being used for an infringing website. The Respondent did not make any 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 (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), 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. page 4 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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and in this case, consists of a variation of the Complainant’s trade mark, namely an intentional misspelling. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.9. 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 that 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 3.1, 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: copycat sites and passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 this case, the Panel is persuaded that this is a typical case of typosquatting, and the intention of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name was to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website site. (Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.) page 5 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: copycat sites and passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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. 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 <filimed.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Francine Tan/ Francine Tan Sole Panelist Date: February 23, 2026

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