Fruggiees.shop

The timeline behind fruggiees.shop

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 FRUGGIES FOODS v. hakidi kidak, medialaki llc Case No. D2026-1116 1. The Parties The Complainant is FRUGGIES FOODS, France, represented by Ooslo Avocats, France. The Respondent is hakidi kidak, medialaki llc, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name And Registrar The disputed domain name <fruggiees.shop> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 16, 2026. On March 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 17, 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 amendment to the Complaint on March 20, 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 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 12, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on March 23, 2026. The Respondent requested a suspension of proceedings to seek a settlement agreement between the Parties on March 23, 2026. However, the Parties did not reach a settlement in the matter. page 2 The Center appointed Haig Oghigian as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 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, Fruggies Foods, SAS, is a company specializing in online preparations for beverages based on freeze-dried fruits and vegetables sourced from organic farming. The Complainant is based in Paris, France and enjoys a reputation in its field of activity, which is the sale of freeze-dried fruit and vegetable preparations marketed in sachets, and has established itself as a leading player in this sector. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for “FRUGGIES”, such as but not limited to: Trademark Jurisdiction Registration Number Registration Date FRUGGIES France 4908378 February 10, 2023 France 5178507 December 26, 2025 FRUGGIES European Union 018867036 September 21, 2023 The Complainant operates its website at <fruggies.com>, <fruggies.de>, <fruggies.fr> and others. The disputed domain name <fruggiees.shop>, was registered by the Respondent on December 8, 2025. The disputed domain name redirected to a website imitating that operated by the Complainant and currently resolves to an error page. 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: -The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant demonstrated ownership of numerous trademark registrations for “FRUGGIES”. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to the “FRUGGIES” mark in which the Complainant has rights, except with the misspelling of an additional “E”, reading as “FRUGGIEES”. The Complainant adds that the distinctiveness of the “FRUGGIES” mark, as well as the Complainant’s industry recognition should be taken into account when assessing the first element. -The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant argues that they have demonstrated rights to the “FRUGGIES” mark, and that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or owns any registered trademarks including the term “FRUGGIES”. The Complainant further asserts that at no point has the Respondent been licensed to use its marks, nor are they affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant adds that there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name, given that it resolves to a near identical copy of the Complainant’s web page, reproducing the Complainant’s marks which the Complainant argues cannot constitute a basis for good faith use. Moreover, the page 3 Complainant argues that the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering for sale products and services identical to those of the Complainant, (for example “Pack de 30 Fruggies” offered at a price of EUR 9.99), on which the Complainant’s “FRUGGIES” trademark was reproduced, clearly demonstrates that the Respondent sought to take advantage of the use of a domain name nearly identical to the Complainant’s prior trademarks, thereby creating a manifest risk of confusion. -The disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. -The Complainant states that the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks predates the registration of the disputed domain name. Nonetheless, the Respondent has chosen to use the distinctive term “FRUGGIES” in the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges that using the disputed domain name to resolve to website practically identical to the Complainant’s demonstrates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names using the “FRUGGIES” mark intentionally in order to take advantage of the reputation of the trademark and the Complainant’s goodwill, taking advantage of the Complainant’s reputation. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a formal response or challenge the Complainant’s contentions, but did request a suspension of proceedings to explore settlement options with the Complainant. 6. Discussion And Findings 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 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 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. page 4 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity here: 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 notes that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website functionally identical to the Complainant’s, using the Complainant’s marks to impersonate the Complainant, which can never be considered anything but bad faith use. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity or illegal activity here: 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 <fruggiees.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Haig Oghigian/ Haig Oghigian Sole Panelist Date: May 3, 2026

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