Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant, Les Parfumeries Fragonard, is the owner of the “Fragonard” trademark registered worldwide in its name, particularly under IR 312110 registered on April 15, 1966 and CTM no. 010225233 registered on February 20, 2012. The proof of use has been verified through the Clearinghouse based under the mentioned international registration under the Madrid Agreement, which is supported by relevant records attached to the complaint. Complainant also operates its official commercial website www.fragonard.com. The gTLD <.moscow> does not make the name distinctive. Being identical with Complainant’s trademarks, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and it may mislead Internet users to believe that the website is associated with Complainant’s business located in Moscow.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Respondent has no activity under the name FRAGONARD and this domain name does not correspond to the Respondent’s name. According to Complainant, they have never licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to make any use of its trademark, including in a domain name or part of a domain name. Moreover, the Respondent is not commonly known under the name FRAGONARD and has no rights in the term FRAGONARD. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name as it is redirecting to the registrar’s waiting page. Addressing this and, apparently, the other elements of the policy, Respondent states, “Good afternoon! The domain name is not going to use it! I register a domain - like the name and picture http://art-assorty.ru/3274-fragonar-zhan-onore.html And if it turns out you Registration date trademark. I can convey to your account forever. Send your account to transfer the domain to you. Thanks!” Respondent does not deny any arguments of Complainant and does not claim any rights and interests in the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The domain name in dispute was inactive at the time when the complaint was brought. Thus, there was no use as such. Moreover, Respondent claims no rights in the domain name and expresses his willingness to transfer the domain. This might have been interpreted as the lack of sufficient grounds for bad faith finding. However, one cannot overlook the degree of fame of the subject trademark, the scope and duration of its use, particularly in Russia, the fact that Complainant has its business in Moscow, which means that it is very unlikely that Respondent did not know of this trademark and did not mean to prevent the right holder from registering this domain. In view of this, although Respondent’s reference to Jean-Honoré Fragonard, the famous French painter, is impressive, the Examiner is more inclined to agree with previous panels which found bad faith in circumstances where it is unlikely that the registrant would have selected the domain name without knowing about the fame and reputation of the well-known trademark corresponding to the domain name in question. See. Harrods Limited v. Walter Trautner, WIPO Case no. D2001-1164 (“…Given the HARRODS Mark’s reputation, the Panel finds it unlikely that … (ii) Respondent would have selected the Domain Name without knowing of the reputation of that mark.”).

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

1. fragonard.moscow