Elleglasses.com

The timeline behind elleglasses.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 Hachette Filipacchi Presse v. Olena Veselovska Case No. D2026-1554 1. The Parties The Complainant is Hachette Filipacchi Presse, France, represented by Novagraaf France, France. The Respondent is Olena Veselovska, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <elleglasses.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2026. On April 14, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 15, 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 April 16, 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Aaron Newell as the sole panelist in this matter on May 18, 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. Procedural Issue – Location of the Respondent Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. The location of the Respondent disclosed by the Registrar appears to be in Ukraine which is subject to an international conflict, and remains so at the date of this Decision. This may impact case notification, and it is therefore appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceedings should continue. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that the proceedings should continue. The record shows that in accordance with the Rules the Notification of Complaint email was sent both to the postmaster email address for the disputed domain name and to Respondent’s email address disclosed by the Registrar. While the postmaster email correspondence failed, there are no indications that transmission failed in respect of the Respondent’s own email address. Further the Panel also notes that the Center successfully sent the Written Notice of the Complaint to the Respondent’s physical address in Ukraine, however the notification could not be delivered due to the absence of the recipient. All indications are that appropriate steps were taken to convey the Complaint to the Respondent at both the Respondent’s nominated physical address and nominated email address. The Center has therefore fulfilled its notice obligations under the Rules. Further, as set out below, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith whilst targeting the Complainant’s trademark and vested goodwill, as the Respondent established and maintained a website that imitated the Complainant’s business and brand, and misappropriated its trademark rights, even taking steps to publish a up-to-date 2026 copyright notice on that website. This suggests that the Respondent had ongoing Internet access during the international conflict, and subsequent to its registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent who is indicated as being located in Ukraine has been given a fair opportunity to present its case. Whilst communications to the Respondent were in English this is the language of the Respondent’s Registration Agreement and the language used on the noted website, a marketing video published thereon, and the Amazon Services LLC affiliate advertising program indicated to be used by the Respondent. There are no indications that the Respondent would have misunderstood the significance of the Center’s correspondence for language reasons and, in any event, online translation services would most likely have been readily available to it. On this basis, so that the administrative proceedings take place with due expedition, the Panel will proceed to a decision. page 3 5. Factual Background The Complainant was founded in 1826 and is one of the world’s largest international magazine publishers. One of its titles is the well-known French fashion magazine published since 1945 under the trademark ELLE. The Complainant asserts that this title enjoys 32 million readers per month across 50 international editions. The Complainant also asserts that its ELLE title also enjoys a significant readership online, with 100 million unique visitors per month across 55 digital platforms. The Complainant’s ELLE brand is also subject of licensing activities including in respect of eyewear. The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns registered trademark rights in the ELLE name, including: i) European Union Trademark Registration No. 018402081 (registered November 10, 2021) for the trademark ELLE (stylized) in classes 03, 05, 10, 16, 23, 35, 41, 42, 44 and 45; ii) European Union Trademark Registration No. 004818845 (registered December 4, 2006) for the trademark ELLE (stylized) in classes 9 and 12; and iii) European Union Trademark Registration No. 018059739 (registered January 20, 2022) for the trademark ELLE (stylized) in classes 09, 11, 12, 36 and 38. The disputed domain name was registered on August 29, 2025. At the time of filing the Complaint, and at the time of writing this decision, the disputed domain name resolved to a website featuring use of the Complainant’s identical stylized ELLE trademark in respect of eyewear, and featuring images of eyewear bearing the Complainant’s identical stylized ELLE trademark. The website features the description “Elle Glasses Eyewear Store”. The Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint or otherwise engage in these proceedings. 6. 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: i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks because it contains the Complainant’s well-known trademark ELLE in its entirety; ii) the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent does not own or enjoy rights in the trademark ELLE, the Respondent’s website clearly exactly reproduces the Complainant’s stylization of its registered ELLE trademark, the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its registered trademarks, and has never authorized any third party to reserve the disputed domain name; iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent has targeted the Complainant and its rights in the well-known ELLE trademark, has used the Complainant’s trademark in a misleading way in order to give consumers the impression that the Respondent’s website is authentic and associated with the Complainant when it is not. page 4 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 7. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant carries the burden of proving: i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent's default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules does however provide that if the Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to submit a response as it considers appropriate. 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 entirety of the Complainant’s registered trademark ELLE 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. Although the addition of other terms (here “glasses”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of this term 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 page 5 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. 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. Further, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, the use of the Complainant’s registered trademark rights to mislead consumers) 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. As noted above, the Complainant has asserted and provided compelling evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior registered and well- known trademark, to mislead consumers by creating the impression that the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s website or is somehow connected with the Complainant and/or its products, when in fact it is not. 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 3.0, section 3.2.1. The use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as the intentional impersonation of the complainant and/or conduct that is intended to mislead or deceive consumers is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 8. 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 <elleglasses.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Aaron Newell/ Aaron Newell Sole Panelist Date: May 31, 2026

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