Fr-energizer.com

The timeline behind fr-energizer.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 Energizer Brands, LLC v. jean jacques Arthur Case No. D2026-3654 1. The Parties The Complainant is Energizer Brands, LLC, United States of America (“U.S.” or “United States”), represented by Markmonitor Limited, United Kingdom (“UK”). The Respondent is jean jacques Arthur, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fr-energizer.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2026. On August 17, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 21, 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 (Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Whois Privacy Protection Foundation) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 24, 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 August 25, 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 August 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 16, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 17, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 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 is incorporated in the State of Delaware, United States. It is a subsidiary of the group of companies headed by Energizer Holdings, Inc. (“Energizer”), and holds rights in the ENERGIZER trade mark. Energizer traces its origins back to 1896 and is today headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. It is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of primary batteries and portable lighting products. The Complainant’s ENERGIZER-branded products are sold in a substantial number of countries worldwide. The Complainant owns a global portfolio of registered trade mark registrations for ENERGIZER, including the following: - U.S. Registration No. 3130493, registered on August 15, 2006; - European Union Registration No. 007339261, registered on August 25, 2009; and - UK Registration No. UK00907339261, registered on August 25, 2009. The Complainant’s official websites are “www.energizer.com” and “www.energizerholdings.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on March 2, 2026. At the time the Complaint was filed, it resolved to a website that reproduced the Complainant’s ENERGIZER branding and purported to be a website of “Energizer France”, a subsidiary of the Energizer group of companies. The website displayed a banner stating that the site was under construction. The disputed domain name is also configured with a Mail Exchange (“MX”) record pointing to “mail.webador.com”, together with a Sender Policy Framework (“SPF”) record. On July 13, 2026, an email was sent from the address [...]@fr-energizer.com to a third-party supplier, purporting to have been sent by a named individual holding the position of “Supply Chain Manager” at “Energizer France”. The email requested a detailed quotation for five pallets of unbranded promotional pens together with information regarding current stock levels. The email reproduced the Complainant’s ENERGIZER logotype and included address and contact details corresponding to those displayed on the website associated with the disputed domain name. Following further inquiries by the Complainant’s Information Security Team, it was discovered that this activity was ongoing and multiple third parties had been targeted by similar fraudulent communications (collectively, the “Fraudulent Emails”). 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. The Complainant contends, firstly, that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trade mark, with the addition of the prefix, “.fr”, a common abbreviation for “France”. The addition of the prefix does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and, in fact, compounds the likelihood of confusion. page 3 Secondly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name “Energizer”; there is no evidence that the Respondent owns any trade marks incorporating the term “Energizer”; there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever traded legitimately under a business name incorporating the name “Energizer”; and the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant nor has it ever been permitted or authorized by the Complainant to use its trade marks. There is a high risk of implied affiliation arising from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name which fully incorporates the Complainant’s well-known ENERGIZER trade mark. Further, the Fraudulent Emails and use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and its personnel can never confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. The Respondent’s website is calculated to lend the website an air of legitimacy and designed to deceive Internet users into believing that the website is operated or endorsed by the Complainant. Thirdly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive ENERGIZER trade mark, combined with the geographical prefix “fr”, which corresponds to the Complainant’s own French entity. The Fraudulent Emails and the Respondent’s misleading website are incompatible with any conceivable good faith use. 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 trade mark 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 trade mark 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. Where the relevant trade mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (here “fr”) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 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. 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 page 4 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. In the present case, the Respondent adopted a domain name that contains the well- known trade mark ENERGIZER together with a geographical prefix, “fr”, which carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant or with Energizer France. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. Further, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed as applicable, namely, phishing/identity theft and copycat sites, 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. The Respondent’s website makes clear that the Respondent was well acquainted with the Complainant’s brand and business and the latter was deliberately targeted. The reproduction of the Complainant’s branding, coupled with the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for email communications, demonstrates an intention to mislead third parties into believing that the website and associated communications originated from, or were authorized by, the Complainant or one of its affiliates. The DNS records further show that the disputed domain name was configured to support email services, and the evidence of the fraudulent email sent from [...]@fr-energizer.com confirms that this functionality was in fact used in furtherance of a deceptive scheme. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed as applicable, namely, phishing/identity theft and copycat sites 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 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 <fr-energizer.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Francine Tan/ Francine Tan Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2026

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