Ellescanada.com

The timeline behind ellescanada.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 Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Vercel Whois, Vercel Inc. Case No. D2026-0432 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hachette Filipacchi Presse, France, represented by Novagraaf France, France. The Respondent is Vercel Whois, Vercel Inc., United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ellescanada.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 3, 2026. On February 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 3, 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 February 4, 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 February 5, 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 February 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Tommaso La Scala as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 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 in this administrative proceeding is a renown French press company distributing the ELLE magazine all around the world since 1945, with 50 international editions and 32 million readers. The Complainant operates a wide range of websites comprehensive of the ELLE brand, including “www.elle.com”, “www.elle.fr”, “www.elle.in”, “www.elle.de”, and “www.elle.es”, with 100 million unique visitors per month on 60 digital platforms. The Complainant owns several international and national trademarks for ELLE, including Canadian registration No. TMA163349, registered on June 6, 1969, in class 16 and it also owns the domain names <ellequebec.com> (since 1995) and <ellecanada.com> (since 2000). The disputed domain name was registered on June 20, 2025, and it has been used to resolve to a website prominently displaying the Complainant’s logo, mimicking the layout, look and feel of 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: (a) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks (also having effect in Canada); (b) the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (c) the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely for impersonating the Complainant in order to mislead Internet users for undue commercial purposes. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 3 The Complainant has established rights in the ELLE trademark. The disputed domain name consists of the ELLE trademark with the sole addition of the letter “s” and the geographical term “Canada”. This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that the Complainant’s mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name and that such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the ELLE trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, 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 3.1, section 2.1. This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As a matter of fact, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Elle ” and/or any similar name. The Respondent has no connection to or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Lastly, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to illicitly impersonate the Complainant. Having reviewed the available record and considering that 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 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. The Complainant has documented that the Respondent has purposely registered and used the disputed domain name to attempt to defraud others by impersonating the Complainant’s official website. This conduct is, in the Panel’s view, sufficient to show that the Respondent not only knew of the Complainant and its trademarks but intentionally intended to divert Internet users. page 4 The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under the Policy. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <ellescanada.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Tommaso La Scala/ Tommaso La Scala Sole Panelist Date: March 16, 2026

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