Friezeabudhabi.com

The timeline behind friezeabudhabi.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 Frieze Publishing Limited v. Anton Gorbunov Case No. D2026-1060 1. The Parties The Complainant is Frieze Publishing Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, United States of America (the “United States”). The Respondent is Anton Gorbunov, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <friezeabudhabi.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with RU- CENTER (Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 11, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 13, 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 (REGISTRATION PRIVATE) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 16, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On March 16, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Russian and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Russian. On March 16, 2026, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint containing a request that English be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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 Respondent in Russian and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2026. The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the sole panelist in this matter on April 22, 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 prominent operator in the field of arts and culture, providing a wide range of goods and services, including books, magazines, podcasts, art fairs, exhibitions, educational seminars, members’ club services, and hotel-related services. Its activities are conducted on a global scale, with notable events held in cities such as New York, Los Angeles, Seoul, and Abu Dhabi. The Complainant markets and promotes its offerings internationally, including in the United States and the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), through its official website and digital platforms. The Complainant has used the trademark FRIEZE alone or in combination with other elements, since at least May 1991 in connection with its arts and culture-related goods and services. The FRIEZE trademarks have been used extensively in relation to publishing, media content, art fairs, exhibitions, and educational services. The Complainant also registered various trademark registrations worldwide including United States (U.S. Reg. No. 4,188,908) registered on August 14, 2012, United Kingdom (UK Reg. Nos. 2433888 and 909915001 registered on March 30, 2007 and September 23, 2011, respectively), and European Union Reg. No. 9915001 registered on September 23, 2011. On October 9, 2025, a leading platform for online art sales announced that the Complainant would take over the Abu Dhabi Art fair in 2026, with the event to be rebranded as Frieze Abu Dhabi. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 10, 2025. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a parked page offering it for sale for USD 200,127.68, and as of the date of this Decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that each of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied in the present case, as follows: (i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates its well-known FRIEZE trademarks, in which it owns extensive and exclusive rights across multiple jurisdictions. The addition of the geographical term “abu dhabi” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further submits that the registration of the Disputed Domain Name was done just one day after the publication of the Complainant’s collaboration in Abu Dhabi. As such, the unauthorized registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith, in order to create confusion with the page 3 Complainant’s business in Abu Dhabi and use of the geographic location associated with such business is likely to result in consumer confusion. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with, licensed by, nor authorized to use the Complainant’s FRIEZE marks, and the Disputed Domain Name does not correspond to the Respondent’s business or company name. The timing and circumstances of registration - occurring immediately after the Complainant’s public announcement of its Abu Dhabi expansion - indicate that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s rights and intentionally sought to exploit the reputation of the FRIEZE trademarks for commercial gain. The Disputed Domain Name has not been used in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, it resolves to a webpage offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale at an excessive price, which does not confer any legitimate interest. Such use demonstrates an intention to create a false association with the Complainant, mislead Internet users, and derive financial benefit. (iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the FRIEZE trademarks are well known internationally and have been extensively used since at least 1991. In light of such reputation, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The timing of the registration further evidences bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name was registered immediately following widespread public announcements of the Complainant’s “Frieze Abu Dhabi” collaboration, which received extensive global media coverage. This sequence of events supports the inference that the Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant’s mark and its newly announced business expansion. The Respondent’s bad faith is reinforced by the use of the Disputed Domain Name solely to offer it for sale at a price significantly exceeding registration costs, demonstrating an intention to exploit the Complainant’s reputation for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceedings The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Russian. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the Parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that (i) The Disputed Domain Name is composed of English terms and a “.com” gTLD, indicating the Respondent’s familiarity with and targeting of English-speaking users; (ii) the website offering the domain name for sale is presented in both English and Russian, with page 4 pricing in USD and Russian rubles; (iii) the Complainant’s trademark is in English and the Complainant operates its business in English, requiring a translation would impose unnecessary cost and delay. The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceedings. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English. 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced 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. The insertion of the term “abu dhabi” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark, as per the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. In addition, the Panel determines that the addition of the gTLD “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name is disregarded, as it is viewed as a technical necessity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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 the 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. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be present, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, including: page 5 “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable 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; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are 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 or service mark at issue.” Regarding paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds, based on the Complainant’s submissions and supporting evidence, that the Respondent has not been granted any license, permission, or authorization to use the Complainant’s FRIEZE trademarks. Further, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Respondent owns any registered or unregistered trademark rights in any jurisdiction in respect of the term “frieze” or the Disputed Domain Name. In the present case, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. There is no evidence that the Respondent, prior to notice of the dispute, has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name, or any corresponding name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the record does not indicate that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Rather, by offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale the Respondent has intended to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill inherent in the Complainant’s FRIEZE trademark. 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, including: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant has put forth evidence that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and, therefore, did not refute the Complainant's contentions. page 6 The Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence concerning the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s FRIEZE trademarks have been registered and extensively used in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, including UAE, and have acquired a significant recognition in arts and culture services. These trademark rights and their associated reputation clearly predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s FRIEZE trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the geographic term “abu dhabi”. Given the timing of registration (one day after the public announcement of the Complainant’s collaboration in Abu Dhabi) and distinctiveness of the FRIEZE trademark, and its use in connection with wide range of services related to art, publishing and education, including in the Russian Federation where the Respondent resides, the Panel finds it implausible that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. On the contrary, the Panel is of the view that the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant and deliberately chose the Disputed Domain Name in order to create an association with the Complainant. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website. Nevertheless, it is well established that the non-use of a domain name does not by itself preclude a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3). In light of the reputation of the Complainant’s FRIEZE mark, the circumstances surrounding registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent’s failure to submit any response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name was offered for sale on a publicly accessible website, (although not directly offered to the Complainant or its competitors), which, in the circumstances, reinforces the finding that there was an intent to commercialize the Disputed Domain Name by trading on the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s mark. The listed price of USD 200,127.68 is seemingly in excess of the typical registration costs for such a “.com” domain name. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that such conduct constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of 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 <friezeabudhabi.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac/ Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac Sole Panelist Date: May 6, 2026

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