Fruggiefrance.com, Fruggiesfrance.com

The timeline behind fruggiefrance.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. hoaquynh, hoa quynh Case No. D2026-2489 1. The Parties The Complainant is FRUGGIES FOODS, France, represented by Ooslo Avocats, France. The Respondent is hoaquynh, hoa quynh, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain names <fruggiefrance.com> and <fruggiesfrance.com> are registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9, 2026. On June 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On June 9, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names 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 June 10, 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 June 10, 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 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Fabrice Bircker as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 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, is a French company active in the food and beverage sector. It develops and markets freeze-dried fruit and vegetable products and operates its business online through the domain name <fruggies.com>. The Complainant’s activities are notably protected through the following trademarks: - FRUGGIES, French trademark registration No. 4908378 filed on October 26, 2022, registered on February 10, 2023, and designating products of classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; - FRUGGIES, European Union trademark registration No. 18867036 filed on April 25, 2023, registered on September 21, 2023, and designating products of classes 5, 29, 30 and 32. The domain name <fruggies.com> used by the Complainant to operate its online store, was registered on July 7, 2016. The disputed domain names, <fruggiesfrance.com> and <fruggiefrance.com>, were registered on June 2, 2026 and on May 2, 2026, respectively. At the time of drafting this Decision, they are no longer active. However, the evidence on record shows that they previously resolved to a website closely reproducing the Complainant's commercial website, including its corporate identification details, and purporting to offer discounted FRUGGIES products for sale. Very little is known about the Respondent, except that, according to the information provided by the Registrar, it is purportedly located in France. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark as the latter remains recognizable within them. Then, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, in substance because: - to the Complainant's knowledge, the Respondent has no rights in the designation FRUGGIES and has never acquired any prior rights in this sign; - the Respondent is in no way affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized by the latter to use its FRUGGIES trademark or to register domain names incorporating it; - the Complainant does not know the Respondent and has never had any relationship with it; page 3 - the reproduction of the Complainant's FRUGGIES trademark within the disputed domain names reveals a malicious intent to take advantage of the reputation of said trademark; - the fact that the disputed domain names redirect to a website offering for sale products identical to those of the Complainant, and reproducing the FRUGGIES trademark, demonstrates that the Respondent seeks to take advantage of domain names nearly identical to the Complainant's prior trademarks, thereby creating a manifest risk of confusion. Lastly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith, notably because: - the Complainant’s trademark is prior to the disputed domain names and has a repute: - the disputed domain names reproduce the Complainant's FRUGGIES trademark almost identically; - the term “france” within the disputed domain names refers to the Complainant's territory and commercial activities; - the disputed domain names redirect to a website mirroring the Complainant's official website; - in this context, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to its website through the disputed domain names, for commercial purposes, by creating a manifest risk of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. 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 names. 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 that the FRUGGIES mark is recognizable in both disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Indeed, the disputed domain name <fruggiesfrance.com> identically reproduces the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “france”. Although the addition of other terms may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of the term “france” 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 same finding can be made for the disputed domain name <fruggiefrance.com> as it only differs from the other disputed domain name by the removal of the final letter “s” of the Complainant’s trademark, and “a domain name which consists of a variation of a trademark (typically a common, obvious, or intentional page 4 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 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Indeed, the Complainant has not given its consent to the Respondent to use its FRUGGIES trademark in domain name registrations or in any other manner. Furthermore, there is nothing in the record of the case to indicate that the Respondent may be commonly known by the disputed domain names. Finally, before being deactivated, the disputed domain names resolved to a merchant website fraudulently impersonating the Complainant’s website. These websites closely reproduced the Complainant’s own website, including its legal and corporate identification details, and purported to offer the Complainant’s products for sale at discounted prices. In this respect, panels have held that the use of domain name for illegal activity (such as sale of counterfeit goods, phishing/identity theft, 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 finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names being fully aware of the Complainant’s rights, and that he intentionally used said disputed domain names for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s FRUGGIES trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website and of the products offered for sale thereon, in the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. page 5 In particular: - both disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRUGGIES trademark, which predates the registration of the disputed domain names, - the term “france” within the disputed domain names refers to the Complainant’s domestic market; - as mentioned above, the website under the disputed domain names was a copycat website of the Complainant’s commercial website and purported to be operated by the latter; - while given the opportunity to defend its case, the Respondent has remained silent in these proceedings. It follows from the above that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names being fully aware of the Complainant’s prior trademark rights. In addition, the manner in which the disputed domain names were used was inherently misleading and intended for commercial gain, as the website to which they resolved fraudulently impersonated the Complainant. In that regard, it is consistently held that the use of domain names for illegal activity (such as sale of counterfeit goods, phishing/identity theft, copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Lastly, the fact that both disputed domain names are inactive at the time of this Decision does not change the above finding. Indeed, Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain names, and their previous fraudulent use, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has 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 names <fruggiefrance.com> and <fruggiesfrance.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Fabrice Bircker/ Fabrice Bircker Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

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