ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Baccarat SA v. Laura Dragu Case No. D2025-2643 1. The Parties The Complainant is Baccarat SA, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Laura Dragu, United Arab Emirates. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 4, 2025. On July 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 7, 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 (Domains by Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 9, 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 July 18, 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 August 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 26, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 28, 2025. However, following the notification of the Respondent’s default, the Respondent sent email communications to the Center on August 29, 2025 and September 11, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, the French company Baccarat SA, formerly known as the Compagnie des Cristalleries de Baccarat, is a French manufacturer of crystal wares since 1764. The Complainant is present throughout the world with more than 600 boutiques, department stores, authorized resellers and points of sale. More than 20 years ago, the Complainant chose to diversify its activities by offering, in partnership, specific hotel and residences services. The brands BACCARAT and BACCARAT HOTEL are used since 2005 for hotel services and real estate. The Complainant holds various trademarks consisting of BACCARAT, including the following: - International word mark BACCARAT registered on November 10, 1975, under No. 418717 in class 21; - International figurative mark depicted below, registered on February 3, 2006, under No. 889279 in classes 43 and 44: - United States of America word mark BACCARAT HOTEL registered on December 2, 2014, under No. 4649402 in class 43. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 1, 2025, and appears to resolve to a website mentioning the Complainant’s marks BACCARAT and BACCARAT HOTEL with the additional terms “& RESIDENCES” in the title of the website. This website also includes a photograph of a salon and a contact form. 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. First, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its BACCARAT trademark in which it claims to have rights. Second, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name as, in summary, according to the Complainant: - the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated or licensed with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not given to the Respondent or to anyone else the permission to use its trademarks in any manner, including in a domain name; - the Disputed Domain Name itself and its associated website cannot be considered as fair use as its composition and its use falsely suggests that it is affiliated with the BACCARAT trademark. The combination of the Complainant’s trademark and the words “la vie” is used on official websites and social media accounts dedicated to the hotels and residences offered by the Complainant and its partners, especially in Dubai.
page 3 Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In summary, according to the Complainant: - given the well-known character of the Complainant’s mark, the Respondent’s real estate business and the nature of the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent was undoubtedly aware of the BACCARAT trademark and business at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name; - the website linked to the Disputed Domain Name gives an overall impression linked to the image of the BACCARAT brand and its luxury activities in the real estate and hotel industry. This is evidence that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to the Complainant or that it tries to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In an email communication dated August 29, 2025, the Respondent claimed that the Disputed Domain Name “was not taken by [it]”. The Respondent further claimed it asked the Registrar to delete the Disputed Domain Name. On September 11, 2025, the Respondent sent another email communication to the Center, stating the following: “No one is willing to keep that domain and I have proof as mentioned earlier that go daddy ensured me of domain deletion months ago. Please feel free to take it and sorry for the confusion caused.” 6. Discussion and Findings For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that: (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. The Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Complainant has established all three substantive elements of the Policy. In addition, the Panel does not need to make extensive findings in this regard as it notes that where parties to a UDRP proceeding have not been able to settle their dispute prior to the issuance of a panel decision using the Center’s Standard Settlement Form, but where a respondent has nevertheless given its consent on the record to the transfer (or cancellation) remedy sought by a complainant, many panels will order the requested remedy solely on the basis of such consent. See section 4.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In the present case, the Panel observes that the Respondent expressly agreed to the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name in its email communication dated September 11, 2025. The Panel finds that such consent is sufficient to order the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant. See Syngenta Participations AG v. lucas gnat, WIPO Case No. D2023-3863.
page 4 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Flip Jan Claude Petillion/ Flip Jan Claude Petillion Sole Panelist Date: September 15, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy