JJA v Lopezak Lottie

WIPO Case No. D2025-3432

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

JJA v. Lopezak Lottie

Case No. D2025-3432

1. The Parties

The Complainant is JJA, France, represented by Dennemeyer & Associates S.A., Luxembourg.

The Respondent is Lopezak Lottie, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <frhesperide.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 August 26, 2025. On August 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 27, 2025, 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 29, 2025, 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 September 1, 2025.

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 September 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 22, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 25, 2025.

The Center appointed Torsten Bettinger as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 2025. 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

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, JJA, is an international company based in France. Founded in 1976 as a family business, it has grown into a medium-sized enterprise active in-home furnishings and décor.

The Complainant markets garden-furniture products (including tables, chairs, deckchairs, dining sets, parasols, and barbecues) under the HESPERIDE brand.

The Complainant owns multiple HESPERIDE trademarks registered worldwide since the 2000s, including for example:

- International Registration No. 1044063, HESPERIDE (figurative), registered on January 27, 2010,

covering goods in classes 6, 11, 18, 19, and 20;
- European Union Trade Mark No. 010379196, HESPERIDE, registered April 30, 2012, covering goods and services in classes 6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 35.
-

The Complainant also is the owner of, inter alia the domain names <hesperide.com> (created July 31, 2008), and <hesperide.fr> (created November 25, 2015), both resolving to the Complainant’s HESPERIDE website at “

The disputed domain name was registered on July 28, 2025.

As evidenced by the Complainant’s screenshots, the disputed domain name resolves to a retail website advertising garden furniture, including items presented as the Complainant’s HESPERIDE-branded products, offered at prices substantially lower than those on the Complainant’s official website.

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.

With regard to the requirement of “identity or confusing similarity between the trademark and the domain name” pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant submits that:

- under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the test is a straightforward comparison of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark, irrespective of website content or other marketplace factors;

- the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded as a standard registration requirement;
the two-letter prefix “fr”, which is readily understood as a reference to France—the Complainant’s home
country;

- the disputed domain name incorporates the HESPERIDE mark in its entirety with the mere addition of

- such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and, if anything, reinforces targeting of

the Complainant.

With regard to the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the

Complainant submitted that the Respondent:

- lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;

- is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use the HESPERIDE mark and is not commonly known

by it, the domain resolves to a retail site that mimics the Complainant’s branding—displaying the
HESPERIDE mark, official product names, and copyrighted images without permission—offering purported
HESPERIDE goods at low prices, which negates any claim of legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

page 3

Finally, with regard to the disputed domain name having been registered and being used in bad faith, the

Complainant argues that:

- the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to exploit the Complainant’s

HESPERIDE mark, which the domain reproduces in its entirety, falsely implying sponsorship or affiliation;

- the Complainant’s mark is well-known in its sector;

- the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights when registering the domain on July 28, 2025; prices, creating a clear likelihood of confusion and trading on the Complainant’s goodwill for commercial
gain; - the website copies official product images, names, and the HESPERIDE mark to offer goods at low

- there is no credible legitimate purpose for selecting the mark as the dominant part of the domain, the only plausible explanation is to divert Internet users by misrepresentation.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the three following elements:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which

the Complainant has rights; and

(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.

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 Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name reproduces the HESPERIDE mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the two-letter prefix “fr,” which Internet users commonly read as a geographic indicator for France. Such an addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the Complainant’s mark remains readily recognizable within the disputed domain name.

The gTLD “.com” is a technical requirement and is disregarded for the purpose of this element.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11).

Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

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.

page 4

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 3.0, section 2.1.

The record shows that the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s registration of
the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed, approved, or otherwise consented to the
Respondent’s registration or use of its mark in the disputed domain name.

On this basis, the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

The record contains no evidence that the Respondent is licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted to use
the HESPERIDE mark, nor that the Respondent is commonly known by “Hesperide” (paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the
Policy).

The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the mark with only the geographic prefix “fr” (widely read as “France,” the Complainant’s home country). Such composition carries a risk of implied affiliation and does not confer rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The addition of a non-distinctive geographic element reinforces an impression of an official or country-specific portal of the trademark owner rather than establishing any independent right of the Respondent.

On this record, the Panel finds that there is also no evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services before notice of the dispute (paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy). Where a domain name suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner, panels routinely find that any commercial use is not bona fide. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5).

To the extent the Respondent might claim to resell the Complainant’s goods, the Oki Data principles require accurate disclosure of the relationship and other safeguards. A domain name that impersonates or suggests official status fails these criteria and does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 2.8.

In the absence of any evidence rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie case, the Panel finds that the paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is therefore satisfied.

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.

1. Bad faith registration

The Complainant owns multiple HESPERIDE trademark registrations that long predate the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.

page 5

The Complainant’s mark is widely known in its sector; the Respondent’s website copies the Complainant’s product images, product names, and the HESPERIDE mark, and offers purported HESPERIDE goods at conspicuously low prices. These circumstances demonstrate the Respondent’s knowledge and targeting of the Complainant at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, Paragraph 3.2.1.

The Panel is therefore satisfied that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

2. Bad faith use

The Panel also finds bad faith use. By operating a site that passes itself off as the Complainant— reproducing the HESPERIDE mark and catalog imagery and offering supposed HESPERIDE goods at “too- good-to-be-true” prices— the Respondent is intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Panels regard such passing-off use as paradigmatic bad faith use and also note the associated disruption of the Complainant’s business (paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 <frhesperide.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Torsten Bettinger/
Torsten Bettinger
Sole Panelist
Date: October 16, 2025