Firnstyle.shop

The timeline behind firnstyle.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 FIRN v. frelingc frelingc Case No. D2026-2215 1. The Parties The Complainant is FIRN, France, represented by Ooslo Avocats, France. The Respondent is frelingc frelingc, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <firnstyle.shop> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2026. On May 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 25, 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 May 26, 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 May 31, 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 June 4, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 24, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Anna Carabelli as the sole panelist in this matter on July 3, 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 As per the evidence provided with the Complaint, the Complainant is an innovative French cosmetics company specializing in biotechnology-based skincare products. The Complainant distributes and sells its products under the FIRN brand, online - through its website at “www.firn.com” - and through two physical retail outlets operated under the trade name FIRN, located in Paris. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for FIRN in various jurisdictions, including the following: - French word mark FIRN registration No. 5115495, filed on January 24, 2025, and registered on May 9, 2025, in Classes 3, 4, 5, 16, 21, 35, and 44; and - International word mark FIRN No. 1879014, registered on July 21, 2025, in Classes 3, 4, 5, 16, 21, 35, and 44, and designating, inter alia, the European Union and the United States of America. The disputed domain name was registered on March 26, 2026. As per the evidence in the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an active website prominently featuring the Complainant’s FIRN trademark and purportedly offering for sale FIRN branded products. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an error page displaying the notice “This site can’t be reached”. 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 Complainant’s FIRN trademark enjoys significant reputation; - the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark FIRN in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the term “style” which is purely descriptive and is often used in the marketing of cosmetic products; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard the Complainant contends that: (i) the Complainant has not authorized or somehow given consent to the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and (iii) the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, it constitutes misappropriation of the Complainant’s trademark and misleads consumers by creating a false impression of an association with the Complainant, which is not the case; - the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the purpose of attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. Based on the above the Complainant requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel to decide the Complaint based on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances any one of which, if found by the Panel, shall be evidence of the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy above. 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 mark is reproduced and 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. The addition of the Top-Level Domain, such as “.shop”, is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Although the addition of other terms, here “style”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such 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. page 4 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. The composition of the disputed domain name (comprising the Complainant’s FIRN mark in its entirety) creates a risk of confusion and implied affiliation with the Complainant. Further, the disputed domain name has been used for a website allegedly offering FIRN branded products, prominently featuring the Complainant’s mark and imagery. The layout of the Respondent’s website is also very similar, if not identical, to that of the Complainant’s official website. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use and therefore does not give rise to rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. As per the undisputed evidence submitted with the Complaint, the Respondent’s website did not show any information about the Respondent or disclaimer accurately disclosing the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. On the contrary, the overall impression created by the Respondent’s website, is one of impersonation of the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity like passing off/impersonation, as is the case here, 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 Complainant’s FIRN mark had been used and registered at the time the Responded registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent set out to target the Complainant’s mark and to deceive users by adopting confusingly similar domain name, with an intention to divert Internet users to its website for commercial purposes, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. Indeed, the content of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name establishes both the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and the Respondent’s intention to take unfair advantage of those rights. page 5 Furthermore, as noted in Section 6.B of this Decision, the overall impression created by the Respondent’s website, is one of impersonation of the Complainant. This is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel finds that in the circumstance of the case the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are satisfied. The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website and direct to an error page does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine given the totality of the circumstances in the present case, noting the composition of the disputed domain name as discussed above and the failure of the Respondent to submit a response. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. 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 <firnstyle.shop> be transferred to the Complainant. /Anna Carabelli/ Anna Carabelli Sole Panelist Date: July 17, 2026

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