Lareservestbarth.com

The timeline behind lareservestbarth.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 Reyma Sarl v. Artus Mosquet, SAS Sous le Vent Case No. D2026-3382 1. The Parties The Complainant is Reyma Sarl, Luxembourg, represented by Cabinet Germain & Maureau, France. The Respondent is Artus Mosquet, SAS Sous le Vent, United States of America, represented by FIDAL, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lareservestbarth.com> is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2026. On July 30, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 30, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 4, 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 6, 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 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 31, 2026. On August 28, 2026, the Respondent requested the automatic four calendar day extension for Response under the Rules, paragraph 5(b). Accordingly, the due date for Response was extended until September 4, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on September 4, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on September 14, 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 holds a trademark portfolio for “La Réserve”. This trademark is used in connection with the signature luxury hospitality brand of Michel Reybier Hospitality (the “Group”). According to the Complaint, the La Réserve brand was founded by Michel Reybier in 1999 and has developed into a luxury hospitality and lifestyle brand. So far as the evidence in the Complaint goes, the Group operates four hotels: La Réserve Paris, La Réserve Genève, La Réserve Ramatuelle and La Réserve Zurich. In addition to hotel accommodation, fine dining restaurants, wellness and spa facilities, private villas and residences and bespoke guest experiences are also offered under the brand. The Group has a number of websites and social media accounts. The primary website is “www.lareserve.com” (which was registered in 2012). There are also websites for the individual properties: “www.lareserve-ramatuelle.com” (registered in 2004), “www.lareserve-paris.com” (registered in 2006), “www.lareserve-geneve.com” (registered in 2013); and “www.lareserve.ch” (registered in 2000). The primary Instagram account “lareservehotels” has over 18,000 followers and the TikTok account, over 76,000 followers. The individual properties also have their own accounts. The Instagram account “lareserveparis” has 151,000 followers and 19,000 followers on Facebook; the Instagram account “lareserve_ramatuelle” has more than 75,000 followers and 15,000 followers on Facebook; the Instagram account “lareserve_geneve” has 50,000 followers and its Facebook account, 21,000 followers; and the Instagram account “lareserve_edenaulac_zurich” has more than 30,000 followers on Instagram and 2,600 followers on Facebook. The various properties have received numerous awards and accolades over time since at least 2017. For example, La Réserve Paris was named the “#1 Hotel in the World” in the Condé Nast Traveler Readers’ Choice Awards and “Best Hotel in the World 2025” by La Liste, and was awarded three Michelin Keys in 2024 and 2025. The Complaint includes evidence that the Complainant owns two International Registrations for LA RESERVE and two International Registrations for figurative versions of LA RESERVE: (1) International Registration Nos 964359 and 964359A, LA RESERVE, were registered on April 9, 2008, which, between them, designate France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Spain; and (2) International Registration Nos 1053987 and 1053987A, LA RÉSERVE (figurative), were both registered on September 27, 2010, which, between them, designate France, Italy, Japan, Spain, and the United Kingdom. All are registered for a range of goods and services in International Classes 3, 4, 41, 43, and 44. The services in class 43 include “Services for providing food and drink; hotels; catering services; temporary accommodation; bar and cafe restaurant services; rental of temporary accommodation and in particular letting of flats and villas; holiday home services; rental of conference and meeting rooms.” According to the WhoIs record, the disputed domain name was registered on January 2, 2017. It resolves to a website promoting a luxury villa estate on the island of St Barthélemy in the Caribbean. According to a Google search, St Barthélemy is an overseas collectivity of France. The estate (“Le Domaine”) comprises two villas, Villa Les Roches and Villa Les Palmes, which may be rented separately or together. page 3 The Complaint includes evidence that the Complainant successfully opposed the Respondent’s (or its predecessor’s) attempt to register LA RESERVE ST BARTH as a trademark in France on the basis of the Complainant’s prior registered trademark in France. The Respondent’s (or its predecessor’s) trademark application was filed on January 2, 2017. The decision upholding the Complainant’s opposition and rejecting the Respondent’s trademark application was delivered on September 15, 2017. In that decision, the INPI found that LA RESERVE was distinctive in relation to the services in question, whereas ST BARTH would be perceived merely as an indication of the place where the services were provided. No appeal was lodged and the decision became final. It was not until March 2026 that the Complainant challenged the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name and activities through a cease-and-desist letter sent to the contact email address on the Respondent’s website. The disputed domain name continued to be used after that letter. The Response includes evidence of nine third party registered trademarks in Benelux, France or the European Union which feature LA RESERVE or RESERVE for services including the relevant class 43 services; three of which were registered before the Complainant’s trademark and a fourth was filed the same year as the Complainant’s trademark: (1) French Registered Trademark No 3161125, LA RESERVE, which was registered by Siblu France SAS on May 23, 2003; (2) Benelux Registered Trademark No 758235, LA RESERVE (figurative), which was registered by La Réserve Management N.V. on December 10, 2004; (3) French Registered Trademark No 3479875, RÉSERVE DES LYS (figurative), which was registered by Castel Freres SAS on July 13, 2007; and (4) In addition, EUTM No 006453179, THE RESERVE AT PARADISUS RESORTS (figurative), was registered by Dorpan SL on November 6, 2008 with a filing date of November 20, 2007. The Response also includes evidence of nine third party hotels, accommodation providers or restaurants operating in France. These have names such as La Réserve de Beaulieu, La Réserve Saint-Jean-de-Luz, and La Réserve des Monts d’Azur. By decisions of EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal delivered on April 24, 2026 (Cases R 961/2025-2 and R 962/2025-2), the Complainant’s own European Union Trademark (EUTM) registrations for LA RESERVE (both plain word and figurative versions) were declared invalid in respect of relevant accommodation services in class 43 on the application of La Réserve Management on the basis of its earlier rights in LA RESERVE. The Board of Appeal found that, as the services in question were temporary accommodation or related to them, the verbal elements of the Complainant’s LA RESERVE trademark had a slightly lower than average degree of distinctiveness because they may be perceived as allusive to the natural location or setting of the accommodation. 5. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of a disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate 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. page 4 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights. The Complainant has proven ownership of registered trademarks for LA RESERVE as discussed in section 4 above. Pointing out that “reserve” is a common dictionary word meaning (amongst other things) “an area of land where animals, birds and plants are officially protected” and that there are numerous third party users of the expression “La Réserve” in relation to hotel and accommodation services, the Respondent contends that the Complainant’s trademark has a low degree of distinctiveness and so is very limited in scope. The Respondent draws on the EUIPO decisions, including the Second Board of Appeal’s rulings to cancel the Complainant’s EUTMs for the relevant services, in support of this contention. It is well accepted, however, 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 Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Accordingly, the comparison of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's trademark simply requires a visual and aural comparison of the disputed domain name to the proven trademark. This test is narrower than and thus different to the question of “likelihood of confusion” under trademark law. Therefore, questions such as the scope of the trademark rights, the geographical location of the respective parties, the date they were acquired and other considerations that may be relevant to an assessment of infringement under trademark law are not relevant at this stage. Such matters, if relevant, may fall for consideration under the other elements of the Policy. See e.g. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. In undertaking that comparison, it is permissible in the present circumstances to disregard the generic Top- Level Domain (“gTLD”) component as a functional aspect of the domain name system. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. Disregarding the “.com” gTLD, the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark and the term “St Barth”, which appears to be a commonly used name for St Barthélemy. As this requirement under the Policy is essentially a standing requirement, the addition of this term does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity. See e.g. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Apart from anything else, the Complainant’s trademark remains visually and aurally recognisable within the disputed domain name. Similar comments apply in respect of the Complainant’s figurative registered trademarks in line with the usual practice under the Policy to disregard the design elements of a trademark under the first element as such elements are generally incapable of representation in a domain name. See for example, WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.10. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the requirement under the first limb of the Policy is satisfied. page 5 B. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the circumstances of the present case, it is appropriate to consider the third requirement under the Policy next. Under the third requirement of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been both registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. These are conjunctive requirements; both must be satisfied for a successful complaint: see e.g. Group One Holdings Pte Ltd v. Steven Hafto, WIPO Case No. D2017-0183. The Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name given the Complainant’s substantial reputation in its trademark as evidenced by its numerous international distinctions, rankings and media coverage. It points out that the structure of the disputed domain name – La Reserve + location – mimics the design of the Group’s individual hotels and also refers to the prominence of the Group’s listings in Google search results. With that knowledge, or at least a duty to verify that registration of the disputed domain name would not infringe the rights of a third party, the Complainant further contends that registering and using the disputed domain name to provide luxury accommodation services identical to those for which the Complainant’s trademark is registered constitutes registration and use in bad faith. It invokes the INPI decision from 2017 to reinforce the conclusion of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Complainant contends the Respondent’s conduct demonstrates an exploitation of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and creates a clear likelihood of confusion. Neither party has made submissions about whether the Complainant’s registered trademarks in France extend to St Barthélemy which is apparently an overseas collectivity of France. Even if they do not, the Panel accepts that the global reach of the Internet means the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent can nonetheless constitute bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. The Respondent denies registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent points out it has been operating a legitimate business in St Barthélemy, having registered the disputed domain name in 2017 and provided evidence of rental and booking activity since at least 2020. In that time, the Respondent points out it has not attempted to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or to reproduce or imitate the Complainant’s visual identity or the like. Rather, the Respondent contends it adopted the disputed domain name to reflect the nature and location of the Respondent’s premises, a tropical dry forest setting in St Barthélemy (or St Barth). As already noted above, the Respondent further invokes the low distinctiveness of the expression “La Réserve” in this context, especially given the number of third party users of that expression even in Europe. The Panel notes that the Respondent does not specifically deny knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. Notwithstanding that, the Panel considers this is not an appropriate case to go behind the Respondent’s denial of bad faith. First, as the Respondent contends, “La Réserve” does appear to have very low distinctiveness in this context as evidenced by the number of third party users for hotel and accommodation services including some, at least, which predate the Complainant’s own rights. The Panel’s view is further reinforced by the EUIPO’s findings, including the Second Board of Appeal’s cancellation of the Complainant’s EUTM registrations for the relevant services. The INPI decision in 2017 reached a different conclusion to the EUIPO decisions. This decision was handed down after the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant delayed for more than eight years after the INPI decision before taking any action against the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent rightly acknowledges that delay is not necessarily, or even usually, a disqualifying factor under the Policy: see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.17. In the present case, the Complainant was aware of the application to register the trademark in France and successfully opposed that. page 6 It was not until March 2026, however, that the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent. In the meantime, of course, the Respondent was allowed to invest time and resources in developing its business. That passage of time may not necessarily immunise the Respondent against the Complainant if the Complainant’s trademark rights do extend to St Barthélemy. But, given the nature of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel does not consider this to be an appropriate case to go behind the Respondent’s explanation for the adoption of the disputed domain name and find registration and use in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has not established the third requirement under the Policy and the Complaint must fail. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests As the Complaint must fail, no useful purpose would be served by considering the second requirement under the Policy. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking The Respondent contends that the Complaint is “not only unfounded but also fraudulent and abusive” and constitutes “a deliberate and improper attempt to deprive the Respondent of its rights and legitimate business activities”. The Panel understands this as a request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under paragraph 15(e) of the Rules. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16. The Panel does not consider such a finding is warranted in the circumstances of this case. The Complainant holds registered trademarks for LA RESERVE covering hotel and accommodation services and had successfully opposed the Respondent’s application to register LA RESERVE ST BARTH in France, the INPI finding that LA RESERVE was distinctive in relation to those services. Although the Panel has concluded that the Complainant has not established registration and use in bad faith, the Panel is not satisfied that the Complainant knew, or clearly should have known, that the Complaint could not succeed. The Panel does note, however, that the Complaint made no reference to the decisions of the EUIPO’s Second Board of Appeal declaring the Complainant’s own EUTM registrations invalid in respect of relevant accommodation services in class 43, which were delivered some three months before the Complaint was filed. That failure would ordinarily weigh heavily against a complainant. A complainant would be well advised to disclose such matters. 6. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Warwick A. Rothnie/ Warwick A. Rothnie Sole Panelist Date: September 28, 2026

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