Lancome777.com

The timeline behind lancome777.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 L’Oréal v. dd ff Case No. D2026-2198 1. The Parties The Complainant is L’Oréal, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is dd ff, Indonesia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lancome777.com> is registered with Dynadot 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 (Dynadot Privacy Service, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 23, 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 25, 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 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 22, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on June 28, 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, L’Oréal, is a French industrial group specializing in cosmetics and beauty products. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the Complainant maintains a portfolio of international brands covering, among other areas, hair care, hair coloring, skincare, makeup, and fragrances, and conducts business in numerous countries. Among the brands belonging to the Complainant’s portfolio is LANCÔME, founded in France in 1935 by perfumer Armand Petitjean. The LANCÔME brand is used internationally in connection with luxury skincare, makeup, and fragrance products, including the Idôle perfume line. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the LANCÔME mark in several jurisdictions, including: - United States of America trademark registration No. 3022836 for LANCÔME, registered on December 6, 2005, covering goods in International Classes 3, 35, and 44; and - Brazilian trademark registration No. 790503263 for LANCÔME, registered on December 17, 1985, covering goods in International Class 3. The Complainant also operates the domain name <lancome.com>, registered on July 8, 1997, through which it promotes its LANCÔME-branded products and activities. The disputed domain name <lancome777.com> was registered on April 14, 2026. The evidence in the record shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a Portuguese-language online gambling website. The website prominently displays the designation “LANCOME777”. The website offers various categories of gambling content, including sections identified as “Popular”, “Slots”, “Blockchain”, “Pescaria”, and “Recente”. It also displays casino-style games and contains “Login” and “Registro” functions and invites users to create accounts by submitting an account name and password. The registration form includes fields translated as “Enter account”, “Enter password”, and “Confirm password”. The materials submitted with the Complaint further indicate that imagery associated with the Complainant’s Idôle perfume is displayed on the website’s login page. Before filing the Complaint, the Complainant sent notifications to the Registrar and the hosting provider requesting the blocking of the disputed domain name and the deactivation of the associated website. According to the Complainant, those communications resulted only in automated responses or confirmation that the relevant customer had been notified, while the website remained active. 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. page 3 The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LANCÔME trademark. In particular, the disputed domain name reproduces the mark in its entirety, except for the omission of the accent over the letter “o”, and merely adds the numerical suffix “777”. According to the Complainant, neither the omission of the accent nor the addition of the number “777” prevents the LANCÔME mark from remaining clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Complainant further notes that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded for purposes of the comparison under the first element of the Policy. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted to use the LANCÔME mark or to register a domain name incorporating that mark. The Complainant further argues that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or by the name “Lancome”. Nor is there evidence that the Respondent owns any trademark or other rights corresponding to the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a gambling website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the Respondent is allegedly using the reputation of the LANCÔME mark to attract Internet users to an unrelated commercial website. The Complainant also contends that the website’s account-registration functions raise concerns regarding the possible collection of Internet users’ personal or login information under the misleading impression that the website is associated with or endorsed by the Complainant. As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the LANCÔME trademark is distinctive and internationally well- known and that its rights long predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent could therefore not credibly have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. The Complainant maintains that the combination of the well-known LANCÔME mark with the number “777”, commonly associated with gambling and casino activities, was deliberately selected to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s gambling platform. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the LANCÔME mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name and the associated website. The Complainant also relies upon the prominent use of “LANCOME777” on the website, the use of imagery associated with the Complainant’s Idôle perfume on the login page., and the presence of account-registration facilities as evidence that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. Finally, the Complainant notes that the Respondent continued to use the disputed domain name notwithstanding the notices sent to the Registrar and hosting provider. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant 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. page 4 A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of numerous registrations for the trademark LANCÔME. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the Complainant has established rights in the LANCÔME trademark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety save for the accent on the letter “o”. The only additional element is the number “777”, followed by the gTLD “.com”. It is well established that where a disputed domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark, the addition of numbers, descriptive or dictionary terms, or other non-distinctive elements will not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Likewise, the applicable gTLD is generally disregarded for purposes of the comparison under the first element of the Policy. In the present case, the trademark LANCÔME remains immediately recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the number “777” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The evidence in the record shows that the disputed domain name has been used for a Portuguese-language online gambling website, which prominently displays the designation “LANCOME777”, and purportedly offers casino-style games and account-registration facilities. The Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark to attract Internet users to a commercial gambling platform does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy nor does it constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. There is also no evidence on record showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the use on imagery associated with the Complainant’s Idôle perfume reinforces the misleading impression of an association between the website and the Complainant. Such use cannot confer rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The content of the associated website confirms that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. In addition to prominently displaying the designation “LANCOME777”, according to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the website reproduces imagery associated with the Complainant’s Idôle perfume on its login page. The Panel considers that the use of imagery associated with a specific product of the Complainant is particularly probative. It demonstrates that the reproduction of the LANCÔME mark in the disputed domain name was not coincidental, but formed part of a deliberate attempt to evoke the Complainant and its products. The addition of the number “777”, commonly associated with slot machines and gambling, corresponds directly to the content of the Respondent’s website. The composition of the disputed domain page 5 name thus combines the Complainant’s trademark with an element descriptive or evocative of the commercial activity conducted through the website. The website’s use of imagery of the Complainant’s product, together with its login and registration facilities and the composition of the disputed domain name, increases the likelihood that Internet users may believe that the website is operated, authorized, or endorsed by the Complainant. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s LANCÔME trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. Such conduct falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been established. 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 <lancome777.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira/ Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

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