Bbco-fr.com, Bbcofr.com

The timeline behind bbco-fr.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 BB & CO v. Guk Eve, Nashess Eddie Case No. D2026-0867 1. The Parties The Complainant is BB & CO, France, represented by Leca Sevestre Avocats, France. The Respondents are Guk Eve, United States of America (“United States”), and Nashess Eddie, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <bbco-fr.com> (“the First disputed domain name”), and <bbcofr.com> (“the Second disputed domain name”) are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 2, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 2, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 4, 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 26, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 27, 2026. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 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 limited liability company, established on March 22, 2011, to exploit the manufacture and commercialization of furniture, clothing, and accessories to babies and children (Annex 9 to the Amended Complaint). The Complainant is the exclusive licensee of the French trademark registration No. 4618288 for the word mark BB&CO, registered on January 28, 2020, in classes 24, 25, and 28 (Annex 12 to the Amended Complaint). According to the exclusive license agreement, the Complainant is authorized to bring action against any infringement of the BB&CO trademark (Article X of the license agreement). The Complainant has been operating the “www.bbandco.fr” as its official website since 2010 (Annexes 10 and 11 to the Amended Complaint). The First disputed domain name was registered on December 13, 2025, and presently does not resolve to an active webpage. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the First disputed domain name resolved to an online shop purportedly offering the same products at discounted prices (Annex 5 to the Amended Complaint). The Second disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2025, and presently does not resolve to an active webpage. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Second disputed domain name resolved to an online shop prominently displaying the Complainant’s mark, and purportedly offering the same products at discounted prices (Annex 4 to the Amended Complaint) 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. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the named Respondents arguing that the disputed domain names are under common control in view of the following circumstances: (1) both disputed domain names share a similar naming pattern; (2) have been registered using the same registrar; (3) within a few weeks apart; (4) were used in connection with similar online shops impersonating the Complainant. page 3 The Complainant asserts to be a designer and producer of clothes and household linens for babies as well as a wholesaler in the childcare sector established in 2010. The Complainant further states to count with a network of 1,200 retailers and an online store. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BB&CO trademark, given that they incorporate it with the suppression of “&” and the addition of geographical term “fr” and a hyphen what does not mitigate confusion or distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark and characterizing a typical case of typosquatting. Additionally, the Complainant points out that the Respondents have been using the disputed domain names in connection with online shops reproducing the Complainant’s logo, in order to divert the consumers from the Complainant to the Respondents’ websites, which does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Given the Respondents’ conduct to impersonate the Complainant and purportedly offering the same products at discounted prices (Annexes 4, 5 and 12 to the Amended Complaint) the sole conclusion can be that the disputed domain names have been registered for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business and attracting its consumers in an attempt to obtain undue commercial gain. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Matter - Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that (1) both disputed domain names share a similar naming pattern; (2) have been registered using the same registrar; (3) within a few months apart; and (4) were used in connection with similar online shops. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. page 4 6.2. Substantive Matter Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following 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; (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. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names. In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. 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 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, section 1.7. Although the suppression of “&” and the addition of “fr” and a hyphen 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 names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence page 5 demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent, in not responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This entitles the Panel to draw any such inferences from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on the Complainant to make a prima facie case against the Respondent. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has indeed not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has used the Second disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark almost entirely, to pass it off as the Complainant purportedly offering the same products at discounted prices. The Respondent has used the First disputed domain name in connection with an online shop purportedly offering the same products at discounted prices. Also, the lack of evidence as to whether the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or the absence of any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain names, corroborates with the indication of the absence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names. 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. The registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith can be found in the present case in view of the following circumstances: a) the use of the disputed domain names in connection with online shops purportedly offering the Complainant’s products at discounted prices; b) the composition of the disputed domain names targeting the Complainant; and c) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain names. For the reasons as stated above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 6 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 <bbco-fr.com> and <bbcofr.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.