Fr-aperam.com, Fr-ferinox.com

The timeline behind fr-aperam.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 APERAM v. Romain Duris, FERINOX Case No. D2026-0541 1. The Parties The Complainant is APERAM, Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Romain Duris, FERINOX, France. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <fr-aperam.com> and <fr-ferinox.com> are registered with Squarespace Domains LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 9, 2026. On February 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 10, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, FERINOX) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 11, 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 12, 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 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 4, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on March 19, 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 global player in stainless steel. It owns the subsidiary Ferinox, a leading company in the trading, processing, and recycling of raw materials for the stainless steel industry and high-performance materials such as superalloys and titanium. Ferinox is part of the recycling division of the Aperam group. The Complainant or its intellectual property holding company is the owner of the APERAM and FERINOX, trademarks for its goods and services registered as: - International trademark registration APERAM No. 1083497, registered on June 6, 2011; - International trademark registration APERAM No. 1097502, registered on August 17, 2011; and - European Union Trade Mark FERINOX No. 018970813, registered on January 21, 2025. The Complainant has also owned <aperam.com> since November 26, 2010. The disputed domain names were both registered on January 19, 2026 by the same Respondent and resolve to a website under construction, but have both been used in a phishing email scheme. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - The disputed domain name <fr-aperam.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s APERAM mark adding only the abbreviation “fr” meaning France, a hyphen and the generic-Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which do not prevent such confusing similarity. - The disputed domain name <fr-ferinox.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FERINOX mark adding only the abbreviation “fr” meaning France, a hyphen and the gTLD “.com” which do not prevent such confusing similarity. The disputed domain names have both been used for fraudulent purposes in a phishing scheme. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names or either of them and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by “ferinox” despite this appearing in the data registration details for both disputed domain names as this is simply part of the Respondent’s efforts to associate itself with the Complainant. The disputed domain names have been used in a phishing scheme. Indeed, the Respondent attempted to pass off as one of the Complainant’s employees in order to receive undue payment. Therefore, the Respondent used the disputed domain names in bad faith. page 3 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. 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 Complainant’s APERAM mark is recognisable in the disputed domain name <fr-aperam.com>. The Complainant’s FERINOX mark is recognisable in the disputed domain name <fr-ferinox.com>. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are both confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “fr”, likely meaning France, 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 names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Nor does the addition of a hyphen. 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here phishing, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent has put “ferinox” in the registration details of both of the disputed domain names, but they have only just been registered in 2026 and in the absence of a response from the Respondent or any evidence associating the Respondent legitimately with the FERINOX mark it is more likely than not that the registration details are part of the Respondent’s scheme to associate itself falsely with the Complainant for fraudulent purposes. 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 used both disputed domain names for an email phishing scam impersonating the Complainant and disrupting the Complainant’s business. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here phishing 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 names and each of them 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 names <fr-aperam.com> and <fr-ferinox.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dawn Osborne/ Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: March 25, 2026

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