Cuisineschmidt.com, Cuisinesschmidt.com

The timeline behind cuisineschmidt.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 Schmidt Groupe v. H. K. Koborg, Koborg.com Case No. D2026-0769 1. The Parties The Complainant is Schmidt Groupe, France, represented by Osmose Avocats, France. The Respondent is H. K. Koborg, Koborg.com, Mauritius. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <cuisineschmidt.com> (the “First disputed domain name”) and <cuisinesschmidt.com> (the “Second disputed domain name”) are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 23, 2026. On February 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 24, 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 (THE MYP) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 26, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and requesting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 27, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 March 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 23, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on March 23, 2026. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on March 9, 2026, March 11, 2026, and March 26, 2026. page 2 The Center received unsolicited supplemental filings from the Complainant and the Respondent on March 30, 2026 and March 31, 2026. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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 established in 1934 dedicated to the manufacture of kitchen furniture under the trademark CUISINESS SCHMIDT, presently counting with 565 stores around the world. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for the CUISINESS SCHMIDT trademark in several jurisdictions, amongst which are the following: - French trademark registration No. 1451133 for the word mark CUISINES SCHMIDT, registered on October 21, 1987, successively renewed, in class 20; - French trademark registration No. 1500700 for the word mark CUISINES SCHMIDT, registered on November 29, 1988, successively renewed, in classes 11 and 21; and - International trademark registration No. 532502 for the word mark CUISINES SCHMIDT, registered on December 19, 1988, successively renewed, in class 20. The Respondent operates a digital business associated with the Mauritius Yellow Pages in connection with online publishing platforms, directory services, domain name portfolio management and advertising and banner network systems. The First disputed domain name was registered on February 3, 2004, and at the time of filing the Complaint resolved to an active webpage that stated “Timeless Elegance – Custom Kitchens Crafted to Perfection”, “Cuisines Schmidt: Redefining Kitchen and Interior Design”. Presently the disputed domain name states to provide “inspiration for creating better kitchens, embracing healthy cooking, and exploring practical utensils for everyday use. From layout ideas and organisation tips to smart tools and fresh food habits, our aim is to help you build a kitchen that supports modern, healthy living”, as well as links to the Mauritius Yellow Pages related to kitchen and food providers in Mauritius, and a banner at the bottom of the webpage stating that “This Domain Name is For Sales”, below reproduced: The Second disputed domain name was registered on September 9, 2003, and presently resolves to an active webpage substantially equivalent to that available at the First disputed domain name, also depicting the banner at the bottom of the page stating that “This Domain Name is For Sales”. In the past, the Parties exchanged correspondence relating to the disputed domain names following a complaint submitted by the Complainant to Cloudflare. On September 22, 2025, the Respondent sent an email message to the Complainant indicating that the First disputed domain name had been registered by a third party since 2004 being later legally acquired as part of a domain portfolio acquisition since 2010; as well as transmitting its willingness to transfer it to the Complainant “at the cost of the cumulative registration fees [over 21 years], plus a modest 10% administrative charge”. page 3 In one chain of messages in the presented evidence, the Complainant replied to the Respondent on September 30, 2025, inquiring as to the contents of the website available at the disputed domain name which then reproduced the Complainant’s image and numbers. In a second chain of messages in the presented evidence, the Respondent’s September 22, 2025, was replied by the Complainant on November 13, 2025, where the Complainant requested the Respondent’s best offer. On November 14, 2025, the Respondent replied offering the disputed domain names as well as the domain name <cuisinieplus.com> for “All three domains one domain name: client will off one domain name free of charge e.g. cuisinesschmidt.com USD 1,313; or 25% discount for acquisition of two domains e.g. cuisineschmidt.com and cuisinesschmidt.com; or 15% discount for acquisition of the single domain: cuisineschmidt.com”. 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 asserts to be a family business founded in 1934, having, over the years, become France's leading manufacturer of kitchen furniture, producing 800 kitchens per day and expanding worldwide, with 565 stores across the globe, including one in Mauritius - since 2008 - where the Respondent is located. The Complainant also sustains that, through its presence in many countries around the world (including Mauritius) and its expertise for decades in kitchen furniture, SCHMIDT GROUPE enjoys a strong reputation among the general public. The disputed domain names, according to the Complainant, are identical to the Complainant’s CUISINES SCHMIDT trademark with the suppression, in the First disputed domain name of one “s”, leaving the generic term “cuisines” in the singular form. Regarding the absence of the Respondents’ rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant argues that: i. it did not authorize the Respondent to register or even use a domain name consisting of its trademark and that the Respondent has no exclusive rights to the CUISINES SCHMIDT name and trademark; ii. the composition of the two disputed domain names in themselves carries a risk of affiliation by association, in that they usurp the Complainant's identity, suggest sponsorship or approval by the Complainant; and iii. the Respondent is not making legitimate or noncommercial use of the disputed domain names, resulting to mislead and divert consumers to competitors of the Complainant or to the Respondent’s social media accounts. As to the registration of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Complainant argues that the two disputed domain names were registered well after the creation of SCHMIDT GROUPE in 1934 and its CUISINES SCHMIDT trademark which was registered in 1987, and when the Complainant already enjoyed a strong reputation in the field of kitchen supplies and kitchen renovation among consumers, which could not be ignored by the Respondent. As to the bad faith use of the disputed domain names, the Complainant states that they are being used in connection with active webpages containing links to competing websites as well as being offered for sale. page 4 B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. Notably, the Respondent asserts to operate a legitimate digital business, being the disputed domain names part of a broader domain portfolio and publishing ecosystem and were not registered as isolated assets targeting the Complainant, and not having the Respondent approached the Complainant to offer the sale of the disputed domain names. The Respondent further states to use a standardized one-page publishing framework which consists of an identical layout across all domain names, with bilingual content (EN/FR) and a centralized editorial team. The Respondent further indicates that, once notified, the contents of the websites available at the disputed domain names were updated to include the following disclaimer: “This page or domain name is not part of Schmidt Groupe nor affiliated with their brand.” The Respondent also states that a “domain for sale” banner is part of a generalized campaign system, not a targeted sales effort towards the Complainant. Furthermore, according to the Respondent, there is no brand misuse given that there are no Complainant’s logos, proprietary images or impersonation taking place in the webpages available at the disputed domain names. C. Complainant’s unsolicited supplemental filing of March 30, 2026 The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s response confirms that the disputed domain names are being used in connection with a business of commercial and financial nature, being the Respondent’s intent to profit from the Complainant’s trademark solely by the links contained in the respective websites or the Respondent’s true intent of selling the disputed domain names to the Complainant. D. Respondent’s unsolicited supplemental filing of March 31, 2026 The Respondent reiterates not to be targeting the Complainant and its trademark; also having corrected the contents of the websites which were reproducing the Complainant’s figures and adding a clear disclaimer of non-affiliation after the Complainant’s contact. As to the banner indicating that the disputed domain names are being offered for sale, the Respondent contends that the banners are part of a network-wide advertising system, also not being specific to the Complainant, and there being no evidence of targeting. The Respondent further asserts that the use made of the disputed domain names falls within recognized legitimate interests, i.e. a legitimate business model, therefore requesting that the Panel disregard the Complainant’s supplemental assertions, and deny the Complaint in its entirety. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 names; and, (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. page 5 The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names. 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 mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.9. 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. As seen above, the Respondent has been using the disputed domain names in connection with active websites that state to provide “inspiration for creating better kitchens, embracing healthy cooking, and exploring practical utensils for everyday use. From layout ideas and organisation tips to smart tools and fresh food habits, our aim is to help you build a kitchen that supports modern, healthy living”, as well as links to the Mauritius Yellow Pages related to kitchen and food providers in Mauritius, and a banner at the bottom of the web. Such use is clearly linked to the Complainant’s business and indicates that the Respondent is seeking to profit from an undue association with the Complainant’s well-known trademark in the field of kitchen furniture, and does not derive from any right that the Respondent might have in a similar name. In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, and furthermore, the Complainant indeed states that the Respondent was not authorized to register or even use a domain name consisting of its trademark. page 6 In addition to that, the absence of any indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names, or that it has acquired any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain names, corroborate with the indication of the Respondents’ lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy indicates in paragraph 4(b) that bad faith registration and use can be found in view of: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring them to the Complainant who is the owner of a trademark relating to the disputed domain names or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names; or (ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in corresponding domain names, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites or other locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or locations or of a product or service on the Respondent’s websites or locations. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Previous panels have found that professional domainers are to be held to a higher standard and are expected to undertake due diligence when acquiring bulk portfolios of domain names (e.g. mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141; Goodr LLC v. Michael Rder, Brandroot, WIPO Case No. D2018-1171, Supermac’s (Holdings) Limited v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Brandroot.com, WIPO Case No. D2018-0540; Flutter Entertainment plc and Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited v. Privacy Protection / Bruce, CAO, WIPO Case No. D2022-2862; and more recently FairyLoot Ltd v. Lily Miller, WIPO Case No. D2026-0657 ). In this case, the disputed domain names are clearly linked to the Complainant’s well-known trademark and the Panel considers that the Respondent knew or should have known the Complainant, both at the time of their acquisition as well as of its use targeting the Complainant. Indeed, and as seen above, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names, clearly seeks to profit on th e Complainant’s goodwill providing Internet users with links to competing third-party websites. The Respondent failed to credibly explain why it chose to register the disputed domain names consisting of the combination of words that form the Complainant’s trademark and why the content connected to them reproduced the Complainant’s figures. In addition to that, the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain names is a further indicative of the Respondent's bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 7 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 <cuisineschmidt.com> and <cuisinesschmidt.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2026

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