Grohe-france.com

The timeline behind grohe-france.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 Grohe AG. v. F Shuster Marie, Marie F Shuster Case No. D2026-3675 1. The Parties Complainant is Grohe AG, Germany, represented by Wolpert Rechtsanwälte, Germany. Respondent is F Shuster Marie, Marie F Shuster, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <grohe-france.com> is registered with CNOBIN Information Technology Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 17, 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 18, 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 (Freistaat Bayern) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 18, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 19, 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 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. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 17, 2026. The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and page 2 Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a company organized under the laws of Germany that is active in the sanitary products industry. Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks relating to its company name and brand GROHE, with protection, inter alia, for the territory of Germany: - word/device trademark GROHE, European Union Intellectual Property Office, registration number: 000226662, registration date: December 7, 1999, status: active; and - word trademark GROHE, International registration, registration number: 1384073, registration date: September 5, 2017, status: active. Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own the domain name <grohe.com> which resolves to Complainant’s official website at “www.grohe.com”, used to promote Complainant’s sanitary products and related services internationally. Respondent, according to the Registrar verification, is located in Germany, too. The disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2026. By the time of the rendering of this Decision, it does not resolve to any active content on the Internet. Complainant, however, has provided evidence that, at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a copy-cat website at “www.grohe- france.com”, which copied at least substantial parts from Complainant’s official website and prominently displayed Complainant’s GROHE trademark and logo, without any authorization to do so and apparently without any disclaimer relating to the non-existing (business) relationship between the Parties. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GROHE trademark, as it contains the latter identically, together with the additional part “france” pointing at Complainant’s operations in the territory of France. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent uses the disputed domain name in the field of interest of Complainant to appear to be the latter, (2) Respondent has no trademark rights regarding the term “grohe” anywhere in the world, and (3) Respondent is not a subsidiary or affiliated company of Complainant, and it does neither use the disputed domain name nor the GROHE trademark with Complainant’s permission. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since, by using the disputed domain name to offer sanitary products under Complainant’s GROHE trademark, Respondent creates the false impression that the website thereunder is operated by, affiliated with, or otherwise authorized by Complainant which it is not. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar First, 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 Complainant’s GROHE trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of its GROHE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Also, the entirety of such trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, merely added by the geographical term “france”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GROHE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, the geographical term “france”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, UDRP panels take the view that the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s GROHE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel, therefore, holds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Second, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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 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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted 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. page 4 In particular, Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s GROHE trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name, and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “grohe” on its own. Quite to the contrary, at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a copycat website at “www.grohe-france.com”, which copied at least substantial parts from Complainant’s official website and prominently displayed Complainant’s GROHE trademark and logo, without any authorization to do so and apparently without any disclaimer relating to the non-existing (business) relationship between the Parties, thus creating the impression that such website derived from Complainant which it obviously did not. Such use of the disputed domain name constitutes a clear impersonation of Complainant, presumably for some unlawful purpose, and, thus, neither qualifies as bona fide nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. In this context, UDRP panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here: Complainant’s impersonation/passing off by Respondent for some unlawful purpose) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel, therefore, holds the second element of the Policy has been established, too. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Third, 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 circumstances to this case leave no doubts that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant’s rights in its GROHE trademark when registering the disputed domain name and that the latter is clearly directed thereto. Moreover, using the disputed domain name to resolve to a copycat website at “www.grohe- france.com”, which copied at least substantial parts from Complainant’s official website and prominently displayed Complainant’s GROHE trademark and logo, without any authorization to do so and without any disclaimer relating to the non-existing (business) relationship between the Parties, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s GROHE trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Also, UDRP panels have long held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, Complainant’s impersonation/passing off by Respondent) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel, therefore, holds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy, too. 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, <grohe-france.com>, be transferred to Complainant. /Stephanie G. Hartung/ Stephanie G. Hartung Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2026

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