Frmobilierhesperide.com

The timeline behind frmobilierhesperide.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 JJA v. Felixc Austin Case No. D2026-0255 1. The Parties The Complainant is JJA, France, represented by Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., Luxembourg. The Respondent is Felixc Austin, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <frmobilierhesperide.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 22, 2026. On January 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 23, 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 (Unknown – Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 23, 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 on January 23, 2026. 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 January 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 17, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Zineb Naciri Bennani as the sole panelist in this matter on February 20, 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 founded 50 years ago, proposing in international market home furnishings and decor products under the trademark HESPÉRIDE. The Complainant owns numerous trademark rights including the following: - International Trademark Registration No. 1044063 for HESPÉRIDE, registered on January 27, 2010, in relation with goods in classes 6, 11, 18, 19, and 20; and - European Union trademark registration No. 010379196 for HESPERIDE, registered on April 30, 2012, in relation with goods and services in classes 6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 35. The Complainant also owns multiple domain names such as: - <hesperide.com> registered on July 31, 2008; and - <hesperide.fr> registered on November 25, 2015. The disputed domain name was registered on December 2, 2025, and resolves to a website in the French language purportedly proposing products under the Complainant’s trademark. 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 highly confusing to a trademark in which it has earlier rights. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name directs to an active website displaying the Complainant’s products offered at reduced prices, and the Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as it has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the trademark. The Complainant asserts that there is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and that consumers may mistakenly believe they are visiting the Complainant’s official website or an affiliated site, as the website features official images of the Complainant's products, along with the Complainant’s trademark and the names of the Complainant’s products. page 3 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith considering that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark rights. The Complainant asserts that there is a likelihood of confusion created by the Respondent at directing Internet users to a website that uses official images of the Complainant, inducing Internet users to erroneously believe that the disputed domain name is a domain name operated and/or authorized by the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Panel should decide a complaint based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must establish each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered to the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “fr ” and “mobilier”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the 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 3.1, section 1.8. The Top-Level Domain “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. The disputed domain name resolves to a website prominently reproducing the Complainant’s trademark, publishing the Complainant’s product pictures and offering the Complainant’s products for sale without the Complainant’s authorization and without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant, which is not a bona fide offering. The disputed domain name is used for commercial gain. Hence, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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 used the disputed domain name to direct to a website prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark and pictures of the Complainant’s products and offering those products for sale without the Complainant’s authorization and without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant. As such, 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 mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. 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. page 5 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 <frmobilierhesperide.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Zineb Naciri Bennani/ Zineb Naciri Bennani Sole Panelist Date: March 6, 2026

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