Yves-salomon.cam

The timeline behind yves-salomon.cam

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 YVES SALOMON SAS v. Name Redacted Case No. D2026-0710 1. The Parties The Complainant is YVES SALOMON SAS, France, represented by Cabinet Lavoix, France. The Respondent is Name Redacted 1 . 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <yves-salomon.cam> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 19, 2026. On February 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 19, 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 (User #36331105 Privacy, See PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 20, 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”). 1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third-party organization when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s organization name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the registrant organization. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST- 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 19, 2026. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 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, a French company, is one of the leading companies in the European fur sector. Its company name was previously YVES SALOMON FOURREUR and was changed to YVES SALOMON SAS on April 22, 2021. The Complainant operates in several countries worldwide. It notably owns stores in France and Italy, as well as in other European countries (including Ireland, Poland, and Austria), in the United States of America, in Asia and in the United Kingdom. The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of: French trademark registration number 3618683 for YVES SALOMON (word), registered on June 19, 2009, renewed in 2019, in classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, 25. European Union trademark registration number 000767145 for YVES SALOMON (word), registered on October 14, 1999, in classes 18 and 25, renewed in 2008 and 2018; International trademark registration number 1017913 for YVES SALOMON (word), registered on May, 28, 2009, protected in classes 18 and 25, renewed in 2019. The Complainant is also the owner of multiple domain names, including: <yves-salomon.fr> created on February 28, 2001, <yves-salomon.com> created on February 27, 2001, <yves-salomon.net> created on March 23, 2017, and <yves-salomon.org> created on March 23, 2017. The disputed domain name was registered on February 10, 2026, and it is currently inactive. However, based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name appears to have been configured and used for sending and receiving fraudulent email communications. 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 and documents that the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent for a phishing scheme whereby the Respondent impersonated two employees of the Complainant to deceive recipients into believing that the phishing emails were legitimate. Specifically, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails with misleading email addresses (e.g. employee1@yves-salomon.cam and employee2@yves-salomon.cam) through which the Respondent disguised itself as employees of the Complainant in order to obtain a payment. The emails are signed as the Complainant’s “Export Department” followed by the Complainant’s address. In these fraudulent emails, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to provide its own bank details to obtain a payment from a page 3 client of the Complainant. In the bank details, the Respondent intentionally indicated the Complainant’s name and address in order to deceive the recipients and obtain such payment. In addition, the Complainant affirms that the Italian company listed as the registrant is in fact a legitimate company engaged in the supply of gas- and oil-related equipment. Therefore, the Complainant believes that the person who registered the disputed domain name also impersonated this company in order to conceal its true identity and carry out fraudulent activities. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) 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 and recognizable 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, an “hyphen” 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 name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 page 4 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. In addition, UDRP panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activities, such as phishing and/or identity theft, 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. 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 In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used an email address associated with the disputed domain name to send phishing emails for the purposes of dishonest activity, namely to impersonate the Complainant’s employees in order to deceive the recipients and obtain fraudulent payments. This constitutes evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as phishing or identity theft, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Finally, the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name are also affirmed by the fact that the Respondent did not deny the assertions of bad faith made by the Complainant in this proceeding. 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 <yves-salomon.cam> be transferred to the Complainant. /Fabrizio Bedarida/ Fabrizio Bedarida Sole Panelist Date: April 10, 2026

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