Les3brasseurs-reims.com

The timeline behind les3brasseurs-reims.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 3 Brasseurs International v. Thao Le Thi Case No. D2026-3334 1. The Parties The Complainant is 3 Brasseurs International, France, represented by AARPI Scan Avocats, France. The Respondent is Thao Le Thi, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <les3brasseurs-reims.com> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 28, 2026. On July 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 29, 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 August 3, 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 August 4, 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 August 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 6, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on September 18, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Daniel Kraus as the sole panelist in this matter on September 21, 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, 3 BRASSEURS INTERNATIONAL is the parent company of the well-known French restaurant and brewery chain “3 BRASSEURS”, established in 1986. The chain, operated under franchise agreements, offers brasserie-style cuisine and craft beer in an atmosphere styled on traditional Belgian breweries. As of 2024, the Complainant operated more than 100 franchised restaurants in France, French overseas territories, Canada, and Brazil. The Complainant belongs to the AGAPES group, one of France’s leading catering conglomerates, and has been the subject of extensive press coverage both domestically and internationally. Of particular relevance to this proceeding, the Complainant operates two franchised “3 BRASSEURS” restaurants in the French city of Reims. The Complainant's Trademarks The Complainant is the owner of multiple registered trademarks for 3 BRASSEURS. The most relevant registrations include: - 3 BRASSEURS: European Union trademark No. 009468241, registered on April 1, 2011, covering goods and services in classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 43 (duly renewed and live); - 3 BRASSEURS: French trademark No. 3770229, registered on September 29, 2010, covering goods and services in classes 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 43 (duly renewed and live); - 3 BRASSEURS: European Union trademark No. 018104821 (figurative mark incorporating “3 BRASSEURS”), registered on December 14, 2019, covering goods and services in classes 29, 30, 32, 33, and 43; - 3 BRASSEURS: European Union trademark No. 018848491 (registered on July 12, 2023, classes 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, and 43). All of the above registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name by several years. The Complainant's Domain Names The Complainant owns and actively uses several domain names incorporating the 3 BRASSEURS mark to promote its business, including <3brasseurs.org> (registered November 18, 2008), <3brasseurs.com> (registered October 10, 2019), <3brasseurs.fr> (registered September 1, 2020), and <les3brasseursmontpellier.com> (registered July 10, 2014). The last of these illustrates the Complainant's practice of combining its core mark with a geographical term to identify franchise locations in specific French cities. Pre-Dispute Correspondence Prior to filing the Complaint, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent through the Registrar. The Registrar forwarded the letter to the Respondent on the following day. The Respondent failed to provide any response. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name <les3brasseurs-reims.com> was registered on June 13, 2026, more than 15 years after the Complainant's earliest trademark registrations. At the time of the Complaint and as confirmed by screenshots annexed thereto, the disputed domain name resolved to an online gambling website operating under the name “B52 Club” (b52.com), written primarily in Vietnamese. The website offered card page 3 games, online gambling, lottery services, and fish shooting games, with no connection whatsoever to the Complainant's restaurant and brewery business. The Respondent The Respondent was initially redacted in the public WhoIs database. The Respondent has no known relationship with the Complainant, is not an authorized franchisee of the “3 Brasseurs” chain, and has never been licensed or authorized to use the Complainant's trademark. Following the Center's Notification of Respondent Default on September 17, 2026, the Respondent sent an informal email on September 18, 2026, asserting without supporting evidence that the disputed domain name does not infringe the Complainant's intellectual property rights and requesting that its communication be considered in the proceedings. 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. On the first element, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its 3 BRASSEURS trademarks, as the mark is reproduced in its entirety within the disputed domain name, preceded only by the French definite article “les” and followed by a hyphen and the geographical term “reims”. The Complainant submits that the term “reims” directly identifies the French city where it operates franchised restaurants, and that its inclusion reinforces rather than diminishes confusion by suggesting an association with the Complainant's local franchise operations. The Complainant relies, in particular, on the directly analogous precedent of 3 Brasseurs International v. Norazeth Milinvorapapond, WIPO Case No. D2025-0247 where a UDRP panel reached the same conclusion with respect to the addition of a French city name to the 3 BRASSEURS mark. On the second element, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known by the “3 BRASSEURS” designation, has never been authorized to use the Complainant's trademarks, is not a franchisee of the Complainant, and is not making any bona fide use of the domain name. The Complainant further notes that a Google search for “3 brasseurs reims” yields results exclusively related to the Complainant and its franchised restaurants in Reims. On the third element, the Complainant contends that registration in bad faith is demonstrated by the deliberate combination of its well-known mark with the geographical term “reims”, where the Complainant actively operates franchised restaurants, and by the fact that a search for “les 3 brasseurs” returns only results connected to the Complainant, making it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's rights at the time of registration. The Complainant also argues that use in bad faith is established by the Respondent's redirection of the disputed domain name to an online gambling and adult content website for commercial gain, a use which tarnishes the Complainant's image and exploits the initial interest confusion created by the domain name. The Complainant further relies on the Respondent's failure to respond to the cease-and-desist letter, and its non-appearance in these proceedings as additional indicia of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a timely Response to the Complainant's contentions. Following the Center's notification of default on September 17, 2026, the Respondent sent an informal email on September 18, 2026, stating in substance that “the use of this domain name does not infringe any copyright or trademark rights held by the Complainant” and that it “is not in violation of any intellectual property rights associated page 4 with their brand”. The Respondent offered no sufficient evidence, facts, or legal argument in support of these assertions. The Respondent also requested the opportunity to submit a formal Response at that late stage and asked the Panel to take its position into account. 6. Discussion and Findings Preliminary Matter: Late Communication from the Respondent Before addressing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel notes that the Respondent's email of September 18, 2026 was submitted after the expiry of the Response deadline of September 6, 2026. The Panel has discretion to consider or disregard such late submissions. Having reviewed the Respondent's email, the Panel finds that it contains nothing beyond bare, unsupported denials of infringement, without any factual basis, supporting evidence, or legal reasoning. As this communication adds nothing material to the record, the Panel will acknowledge its existence but accords it no weight in the analysis that follows. 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 Complainant holds multiple registered trademarks for the 3 BRASSEURS mark. All relevant registrations significantly predate the June 13, 2026 registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant's trademark rights are clearly established. The entirety of the 3 BRASSEURS mark 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, the French article “les” and the geographical term “Reims” — may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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 “.com” generic Top-Level Domain is disregarded in this analysis as it fulfils a purely technical function. 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 page 5 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 Panel notes the following in respect of the three illustrative circumstances under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy: (i) There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolves to an online gambling website (“B52 Club”) written in Vietnamese, entirely unrelated to the Complainant's restaurant and brewery business. Such use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. (ii) There is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the name “3 Brasseurs”, “Les 3 Brasseurs”, or any corresponding designation. The Complainant confirms that the Respondent has no authorized relationship with it and is not one of its franchisees. (iii) There is no evidence of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name to redirect traffic to a commercial gambling platform is inherently commercial in nature and cannot constitute fair use. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity - here, exploiting a well- known trademark to redirect Internet users to an online gambling website for commercial gain - 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 and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons. Registration in bad faith The 3 BRASSEURS brand has been in continuous commercial use since 1986 and the corresponding trademarks were registered in the European Union and France as early as 2010. By the time the disputed domain name was registered on June 13, 2026, the mark had acquired well-established recognition in France and internationally. A search on any major search engine for “les 3 brasseurs” or “3 brasseurs reims” yields results referring exclusively to the Complainant and its franchised restaurants. The Panel finds it wholly implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's rights at the time of registration. The deliberate combination of the Complainant's 3 BRASSEURS mark, reproduced in its entirety, with the geographical term “reims”, identifying the specific French city where the Complainant operates franchised restaurants, is not a coincidence. This combination points unmistakably to a targeted registration intended to exploit the Complainant's reputation. As observed in the above-mentioned WIPO Case No. D2025-0247, the registration of a domain name combining the 3 BRASSEURS trademark with a French city name by page 6 someone with no connection to the Complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith. The Panel concurs with that analysis and reaches the same conclusion in the present case. Use in bad faith The disputed domain name currently resolves to a commercial online gambling website (“B52 Club”). This use falls squarely within the circumstances described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website. Internet users searching for information about a “3 Brasseurs” restaurant in Reims may inadvertently be directed to the Respondent's gambling platform, thereby facilitating commercial gain for the Respondent or associated operators at the expense of the Complainant's reputation. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (here, directing Internet users to an online gambling website by exploiting a confusingly similar domain name incorporating a well- known trademark) 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 Panel further takes into account the following additional circumstances, each of which reinforces its finding of bad faith in the totality of the circumstances: (i) the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant's pre-Complaint cease-and-desist letter; (ii) the Respondent failed to file a timely Response in these proceedings despite having received proper notification; and (iii) the Respondent's only communication to the Center consisted of bare, conclusory denials unsupported by any evidence. 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 <les3brasseurs-reims.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Daniel Kraus/ Daniel Kraus Sole Panelist Date: October 1, 2026

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