Tfalactifry.com

The timeline behind tfalactifry.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 TEFAL and SEB S.A. v. Hakob Kostanyan Case No. D2026-0595 1. The Parties The Complainants are TEFAL, France (the “First Complainant”) and SEB S.A., France (the “Second Complainant”) (collectively referred to as the “Complainant”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Hakob Kostanyan, Armenia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tfalactifry.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2026. On February 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 18, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy (DT), Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on February 18, 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 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 February 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 17, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 18, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on March 26, 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 First and Second Complainants are part of the same corporate group, namely Groupe SEB, whose origins date back to 1857. Groupe SEB operates globally in the field of small domestic appliances, including kitchen electrical goods, cookware, and home and personal care products. Groupe SEB employs approximately 31,000 people, has a presence in over 150 countries, and operates numerous industrial sites and retail outlets worldwide. The Second Complainant is the parent company of Groupe SEB. It is responsible for defining and implementing the group’s development strategy and exercises control over the companies within Groupe SEB. The First Complainant owns the TEFAL / T-FAL brand, which is widely known for its non-stick cookware and associated products. The TEFAL brand was established in 1956 and was subsequently acquired by Groupe SEB in 1968. The T-FAL brand is primarily used in the United States of America, Canada, and Japan as a regional variant of the TEFAL brand. One of the First Complainant’s products is a cooking appliance marketed under the ACTIFRY brand, introduced in 2007. It is a low-oil fryer that uses hot air and an automatic stirring paddle to cook food. The Complainant has sold over 8 million units worldwide. The First Complainant is the owner of multiple T-FAL trademark registrations, including: - the United States of America Trademark Registration for T-FAL (word trademark), No. 713017, registered on March 28, 1961; - the United States of America Trademark Registration for T-FAL (word trademark), No. 2398176, registered on October 24, 2000; and - the French Trademark Registration for T-FAL (combined trademark), No. 3341888, registered on March 25, 2005. The Second Complainant is the owner of multiple ACTIFRY trademark registrations, including: - the United States of America Trademark Registration for ACTIFRY (word trademark), No. 3533512, registered on November 18, 2008; and - the European Union Trade Mark Registration for ACTIFRY (word trademark), No. 005410493, registered on October 11, 2007. The Complainant is also the owner of domain names incorporating the T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks, including <t-fal.com>, <t-falusa.com> and <actifry.com>. The Domain Name was registered on February 10, 2010. The Complainant states that it was the original registrant of the Domain Name and submits historical WhoIs records showing that in March 2017 the Domain Name was owned by it. It submits that, in or around March 2017, the Domain Name was transferred without its knowledge or consent. The Complainant contends that the Respondent obtained control of the Domain Name through improper means. The Complainant further asserts (and provides supporting evidence) that, following the transfer, the Respondent maintained content previously displayed by the Complainant on the website associated with the Domain Name. page 3 On October 27, 2025, and November 4, 2025, the Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters to the Respondent requesting, inter alia, the transfer of the Domain Name. No response was received. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name does not resolve to any active 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 Domain Name. First, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Third, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. Some panels have also expressed this as an “on balance” standard. Under this standard, a party should demonstrate to a panel’s satisfaction that it is more likely than not that a claimed fact is true. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant holds valid registrations for the T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks. The Domain Name incorporates these trademarks in their entirety (save for the hyphen in the T-FAL mark). As numerous UDRP panels have held, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The Domain Name differs from the Complainant’s T-FAL trademark only by the omission of the hyphen page 4 between the letter “t” and the element “fal ”. The omission of such hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. UDRP panels have consistently held that the presence or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark at issue. See Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Jonathon D. Kimball, WIPO Case No. D2000-0119. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks. Thus, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second element, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. A right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name may be established, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, if the Panel finds any of the following circumstances: (i) that the Respondent has used or made preparations to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or (ii) that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name, even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances foreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case. On the contrary, it results from the evidence on record that the Complainant’s T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks registrations predate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence in the case record that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the T- FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks or to register the Domain Name incorporating these trademarks. In this context, the Complainant has demonstrated that it previously owned the Domain Name and submits that, in or around March 2017, the Domain Name was transferred without its knowledge or consent. The Complainant contends that the Respondent thereby obtained control of the Domain Name through improper means. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Panel considers that the composition of the Domain Name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See section 2.5.1. of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Next, it results from the evidence on record that the Respondent does not make use of the 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 Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent appears to have continued to display the Complainant’s original content previously available on the website associated with the Domain Name. Such use of the Domain Name, which appears aimed at passing off as the Complainant or otherwise taking unfair page 5 advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks, does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. In sum, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the third element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes, without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided it is a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location. As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks predate the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent. This Panel finds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks at the time of registration, given that the Domain Name is a combination of both marks and was previously owned by the Complainant, as shown by the Complainant, and that the Respondent reproduced the Complainant’s original content on the website associated with the Domain Name. Moreover, it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks are well known and unique to the Complainant, at least within the field of small domestic appliances and cookware. In sum, the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the intention of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s T-FAL and ACTIFRY trademarks. Furthermore, the Domain Name resolved to the website displaying the Complainant’s original content. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name does not resolve to any active website. The Panel finds, having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the case, that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of this website. Finally, the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters further supports a finding of bad faith. page 6 For the reasons discussed above, 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 Domain Name <tfalactifry.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Piotr Nowaczyk/ Piotr Nowaczyk Sole Panelist Date: April 8, 2026

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