Fr-stainlesssteel.com

The timeline behind fr-stainlesssteel.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 Stainless v. Registration Private, Perfect Privacy LLC Case No. D2026-0712 1. The Parties The Complainant is Stainless, France, represented by Fidal, France. The Respondent is Registration Private, Perfect Privacy LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fr-stainlesssteel.com> is registered with Fewmoretaps OU d/b/a Trustname.com. (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 20, 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 (WHOIS Privacy Protection Service LLC c/o Trustname.com) 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 the same day. 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 26, 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. page 2 The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on April 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 is a French company headquartered in Dannemarie-sur-Crete, France, where it carries on business as a manufacturer and distributor of steel products. The Complainant has existed for nearly 100 years, and it has used the STAINLESS trademark for more than 35 years in association with its steel and high-performance alloy products and related services. Serving an international customer base, the Complainant focusses on a specialized market in the medical, micro-technical, and aerospace sectors. The Complainant owns an international portfolio of STAINLESS-formative trademarks, including the following trademarks: - the word Mark STAINLESS, registered in France under number 1505591, on December 28, 1988, covering products in class 6; and - the design Mark STAINLESS, registered in France under number 4548029, on May 2 2019, covering products in class 6, 40, and 42. The Complainant also owns the domain name <stainless.eu>, registered on June 10 2006, which it uses in association with its principal website. The disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2025. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name under privacy protection, for purposes of hosting a website purporting to be “STAINLESS FRANCE”, which copies a number of features from the Complainant’s 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 that its trademark has become distinctive and well-known internationally, with registrations in numerous jurisdictions, including the European Union. The Respondent is using the disputed domain to host a copycat website which purports to offer steel-related products and services competitive with those of the Complainant, and prominently displays copied versions of STAINLESS marks. The Complainant’s evidence includes a number of pages from the Respondent’s website which reproduce not only the look and feel of the Complainant’s website, but also photographs, sections of text, layout, and artwork all of which are actually reproduced from the Complainant’s website. Prospective customers of the Complainant have actually been deceived by the Respondent’s phishing scheme, and have reported the loss of significant amounts of money. The Respondent has concealed its identity and has used the address of the Complainant’s German subsidiary, without authorization. In the absence of any response from the Respondent, the Complainant urges the Panel to find deliberate targeting of the well-known mark for improper purposes. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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 Panel finds the STAINLESS mark is 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, the prefix “fr-“ and the word “steel” 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 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 name. In particular, the page 4 Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. Instead, as described above, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to deceive third parties, by hosting a copycat website using the Complainant’s trademark, logos, photographs, textual content and branding. The record shows the disputed domain name and the associated website are configured to deceive users. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing of targeted passing off 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud, 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. In the present case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. In reaching this conclusion the Panel relies on the compelling evidence presented by the Complainant with respect to the copycat website created and used by the Respondent, which is clearly designed to deceive users into thinking they have accessed the Complainant’s website. Particulars of the Respondent’s misconduct include (i) extensive use on the website of the Complainant’s word mark STAINLESS and its distinctive interlocking-S design mark; (ii) reproduction of the Complainant’s website architecture including colours, graphics photographs, text, and overall composition; (iii) use of the website to purportedly promote and sell exactly the same steel products sold by the Complainant; and (iv) deceptively adopting the address of the Complainant’s German subsidiary. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy also 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 illegitimate activity here, claimed copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud, 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 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 <fr-stainlesssteel.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Christopher J. Pibus / Christopher J. Pibus Sole Panelist Date: April 18 2026

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