{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107759", "time_of_filling": "2025-07-23 09:53:06", "domain_names": [ "frette.bond" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Edmund Frette S.à r.l." ], "complainant_representative": "Claudio Tamburrino (Barzanò & Zanardo Milano S.p.A.)", "respondent": [ "wu fan" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a globally renowned luxury linens and home furnishings brand, established in 1860 and long associated with European royalty, leading hotels, and major travel enterprises such as the Orient Express. From its origins in Grenoble and subsequent establishment in Italy, FRETTE quickly expanded its reputation through innovation, including award-winning fabrics, early mail-order services, and one of the first ready-to-wear home garment collections.<\/p>\n

Over the decades, the Complainant became the supplier of choice for the world’s most prestigious hotels, including the Ritz in Paris, the Savoy in London, the Plaza in New York, and the Peninsula in Hong Kong. Today, the Complainant maintains partnerships with over 1,500 luxury properties worldwide.<\/p>\n

The company, now controlled by Raza Heritage Holdings in Hong Kong, where the Respondent is based, achieved revenues of 100 million euros in 2021 and targets 279 million euros with a doubled store network by 2029. Its global presence includes 42 flagship stores in 33 countries, supported by a strong digital platform where e-commerce generates approximately 15% of sales.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is also widely promoted through social media, with tens of thousands of followers across Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, consistently under the name “FRETTE.”<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on April 26, 2025. The disputed domain name resolves to a login page displaying an image incorporating the Complainant trademark, which is currently deactivated.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:(i) The Complainant holds rights in the FRETTE trademarks, as set forth in the “Identification of Rights” section above. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FRETTE trademark, as it incorporates the FRETTE mark in its entirety, followed only by the “.bond” gTLD.<\/p>\n

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither licensed nor otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s FRETTE trademark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a login page displaying an image incorporating the Complainant’s trademark, which is currently deactivated.<\/p>\n

(iii) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It incorporates the Complainant’s FRETTE trademark in its entirety without consent or authorization and was registered long after the Complainant’s well-known FRETTE mark. The FRETTE brand was acquired by the Hong Kong company Raza Heritage Holdings on September 7, 2023, making it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s rights. The panelist in WIPO Case No. D2025-1262<\/em> has already found that the Respondent registered a domain name consisting of a third-party trademark in bad faith, and the misappropriation of a well-known mark as a domain name constitutes bad faith registration under the Policy. Although not currently active, the disputed domain name has been redirected to a login page displaying the Complainant’s trademark, evidencing awareness of the FRETTE brand and intent to impersonate it. While privacy and proxy services may have legitimate uses, their application in these circumstances further supports a finding of bad faith.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making Chinese the language of the proceedings. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding be conducted in English. The Panel has discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings, taking into account the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, see also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang<\/em>, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement).<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends as follows:<\/p>\n