The Complainant is a French company operating in the home improvement and DIY (do it yourself) retail sector. Its flagship brand, LEROY MERLIN, founded in 1923, is described as the leading DIY retailer in France, employing 28,000 people.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns several LEROY MERLIN trademarks (international and EU) and operates domain names incorporating the mark, including <leroymerlin.fr> and <leroymerlin.com>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name, <leroymerlin.live>, was registered on 3 October 2025. <\/p>\n
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <leroymerlin.live> is identical to the trademark LEROY MERLIN since the domain name includes it in its entirety without addition or deletion.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name, but as “Traffic Jet”. <\/span>The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <leroymerlin.live> and that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant. In particular, according to the Complainant n<\/span>either license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark LEROY MERLIN. The Complainant also notes that<\/span> the domain name redirects to a website selling construction tools under the brand DEWALT, <\/span>which competes with the products provided by the Complainant and that said use of the disputed domain name is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n Finally, in the Complainant's view, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, since the disputed domain name <\/span>redirects to a website selling construction tools, <\/span>which compete with the products provided by the Complainant, the use of the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of the owner of the relevant mark is clearly<\/span> in bad faith. <\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is aware of a previous decision related to the disputed domain name (CAC no. 108043).<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " The Complainant´s contentions are summarised above.<\/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": " The domain name in dispute was the object of a previous decision (CAC no. 108043) between the same parties here involved, in which the complaint was rejected. The Panel of those proceedings basically rejected the complaint since he found that passive holding lasting only a few days could not amount to sufficient evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Therefore, it is important to consider the possibility of refiling in UDRP proceedings. Now, according to WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 (point 4.18) a refiled case is one in which a newly-filed UDRP case concerns identical domain name(s) and parties to a previously-decided UDRP case in which the prior panel denied the complaint on the merits. (The previous case may or may not be from another UDRP provider.) As the UDRP itself contains no appeal mechanism, there is no express right to refile a complaint; refiled complaints are exceptional.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Panels have accepted refiled complaints only in highly limited circumstances, such as when the complainant establishes that legally relevant developments have occurred since the original UDRP decision.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n According to this Panel, relevant developments have effectively occurred since the original UDRP decision because in case 108043 the argument of bad faith use was passive holding, while in the case at hand is disrupting the business of the owner of the relevant mark through the use of the disputed domain name to promote a competitor's products. In practice, following the unfavorable decision (case CAC no. 108043) referred to above, the domain name was used in a different way, no longer in connection with a simple blank page, but in connection with a structured site designed to promote a different brand and in clear and direct competition with \"LEROY MERLIN\".<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Therefore, this Panel sees no obstacle to agreeing to issue a decision in the present proceedings.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Guido Maffei"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-01-19 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for \"LEROY MERLIN\". In particular GROUPE ADEO owns:<\/span><\/p>\n a) International trademark registration LEROY-MERLIN no. 591251, registered on July 15, 1992 and duly renewed for classes 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 28, 31 and 37;<\/span><\/p>\n b) International trademark registration <\/span>LEROY MERLIN (dev.) no. 701781, registered on August 8, 1998 and duly renewed for classes 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42; <\/span><\/p>\n c) <\/span>EUTM registration LEROY MERLIN no. 10843597, filed on April 27, 2012, registered on December 7, 2012 and duly renewed for classes 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42 and 44;<\/span><\/p>\n d) EUTM registration <\/span>LEROY MERLIN (dev.) no. 11008281, filed on July 2, 2012, registered on October 2, 2013 and duly renewed for classes 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42 and 44.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"leroymerlin.live": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}