Greflor.com

The timeline behind greflor.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 Gerflor SAS v. Vini Trent Case No. D2026-2194 1. The Parties The Complainant is Gerflor SAS, France, represented by Cabinet Germain & Maureau, France. The Respondent is Vini Trent, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <greflor.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 21, 2026. On May 21, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 22, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 29, 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 May 29, 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 June 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2026. The Center appointed Gökhan Gökçe as the sole panelist in this matter on July 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a French group of companies that designs, manufactures and markets products for floors and peripheries. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the GERFLOR trademark, such as: - International Trademark Registration no. 448867 for GERFLOR, registered on November 8, 1979; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration no. UK00001125826 for GERFLOR, registered on December 18, 1979; - United States of America Trademark Registration no. 3862516 for GERFLOR, registered on October 19, 2010; - European Union Trademark Registration no. 008216434 for GERFLOR THEFLOORINGROUP, registered on December 3, 2009. The Complainant also owns multiple domain names LQFRUSRUDWLQJLWVWUDGHPDUNVXFKDVޒJHUIORUFRPޓDQG ޒJHUIORUXVDFRPޓ The disputed domain name was registered on April 27, 2026. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name was allegedly used in connection with an email communication sent from an address associated with the disputed domain name, namely “[...]@greflor.com”, to a customer of the Complainant. The email appeared to follow up on a prior commercial exchange and requested that payment be suspended while updated bank details were being provided. The Complainant further submitted copies of the allegedly fraudulent banking details documents/RIB relied upon in this communication. According to the Complaint, the intended recipient identified the substitution of the Complainant’s domain name with the disputed domain name before any payment was made. 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 name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. -The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. -The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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. page 3 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. It is well-established that “a domain name which consists of a variation of a trademark (typically a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling, referred to as typosquatting) is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. Here, the GLVSXWHGGRPDLQQDPHޒJUHIORUFRPޓFRQVLVWVRIDPLVVSHOOLQJRIWKH&RPSODLQDQW¶V*(5)/25WUDGHPDUN where the letters “e” and “r” are transposed. The disputed domain name otherwise reproduces all letters of the Complainant’s GERFLOR mark, and the mark remains readily recognizable within the disputed domain name. The inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is typically disregarded in the context of the confusing similarity assessment, being a technical requirement of registration. 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 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 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. There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent appears to be in no way associated with the Complainant, as the Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration and use of the trademark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complaint further supports the conclusion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. See The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0787. page 4 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 registered the disputed domain name <greflor.com>, which contains a misspelled version of the Complainant’s GERFLOR trademark, with the letters “e” and “r” transposed. The disputed domain name is visually very close to the Complainant’s GERFLOR mark and its domain name <gerflor.com>. Given the nature of this misspelling and the fact that the Complainant’s mark remains readily recognizable within the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that this constitutes typosquatting. It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting domain names targeting well-known trademarks is, of itself, evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name. See, Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shep Dog, WIPO Case No. D2004-1069 (finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration); Lexar Media, Inc. v. Michael Huang, WIPO Case No. D2004-1039 (“Typosquatting has been held under the Policy to be evidence of bad faith registration of a domain name”); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Longo, WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 (“[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith”). In the present case, the Respondent has registered a domain name that is nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademark and domain name. As discussed above, this is a form of typosquatting, which in the circumstances of this case is evidence of a bad faith registration. The Panel further notes that, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was used to send an email impersonating the Complainant in the context of a commercial payment exchange. Absent any response from the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the Respondent likely registered the disputed domain name with the intention of targeting the Complainant and its trademark. 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, such as phishing, 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 presence of MX records further supports the conclusion that the disputed domain name was configured for email use, which is consistent with the Complainant’s evidence that the disputed domain name was used to send impersonating emails. The fact that the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s contentions and has provided no evidence of his actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name supports such finding. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes that the Complainant submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name was used to send an email impersonating the Complainant to one of its customers in the context of a commercial payment exchange. The Complainant also submitted copies of the allegedly falsified bank details document (RIB), which were intended to redirect payment away from the Complainant. According to the Complaint, the intended recipient detected the fraudulent nature of the communication before any payment was made, because the Complainant’s legitimate domain name <gerflor.com> had been substituted with the disputed domain name <greflor.com>. The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and to send fraudulent payment-related communications to the Complainant’s customer constitutes clear evidence of bad faith. The fact that the attempted fraud was apparently unsuccessful does not alter this conclusion. By using the disputed domain name in this manner, the Respondent intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of page 5 confusion with the Complainant’s GERFLOR trademark for fraudulent commercial gain within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 <greflor.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gökhan Gökçe/ Gökhan Gökçe Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

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