The Complainant is a French company created in 1964 specialising in manufacture and trade of cosmetics as well as personal care products and related services sold under its trademark “NUXE”.<\/p>\n
It sells its cosmetics all around the world and provides spa services in various countries.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name, <nunixe.com> was registered on December 17, 2025.<\/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": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has established rights in the “NUXE” trademark through registrations in multiple jurisdictions as already set out. The Complainant asserts the word “NUXE” is a creatively coined and distinctive term derived from the words “Nature” and “Luxury” (“Luxe” in French).<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the letters “NI” inserted between “NU” and “XE”. <\/p>\n
Where the relevant trademark is recognisable in the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless or otherwise, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.<\/p>\n
The Panel considers, as a general proposition, that the practice of adding terms into a recognised and well-known trademark for the purposes of registering a domain name constitutes typosquatting. The Panel refers to Alexa Internet and Others v duan xiangwang (2013) CAC 100614 where the panel found that <amegazon.com> was confusingly similar to AMAZON because it incorporated the mark in its entirety and added two letters “eg” with no meaning in context, and that the deliberate misspelling did not create a distinct mark.<\/p>\n
The same reasoning applies here. The insertion of “NI” into the invented and highly distinctive “NUXE” trademark does not materially alter its overall impression, and Internet users are likely to perceive <nunixe.com> as a mistyped or slightly modified version of one of the Complainant’s “NUXE” based domain names.<\/p>\n
That impression is also reinforced by the way in which the disputed domain name has been used. According to the Complainant, the website at <nunixe.com> reproduced the appearance and structure of its official website, used photographs of genuine “NUXE” trademarked products offered at very low prices, and referred directly to the “NUXE” trademarks.<\/p>\n
In these circumstances, the Panel considers that Internet users encountering the disputed domain name, particularly in connection with “NUXE” trademarked branded goods, would naturally assume that it is operated by, or otherwise associated with, the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name also does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name and will be disregarded for the purposes of considering this ground. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.<\/p>\n
The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark 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>\n
A complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, after which the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to discharge this burden, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.<\/p>\n
There is no evidence that the Respondent holds any trademark rights in or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was also registered well after the Complainant’s rights in the “NUXE” trademark were established.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for several reasons, which the Panel accepts.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has been given an opportunity in this proceeding to present a case for rights or legitimate interests but has failed to do so and has, therefore, not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is made out.<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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>\n
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non‑exhaustive list of circumstances which, if present, constitute evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, including where a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.<\/p>\n
The evidence shows that “NUXE” trademark is distinctive and has an established reputation for cosmetics goods. The disputed domain name reproduces the “NUXE” trademark in full, with only the letters “NI” inserted in between the letters “NU” and “XE”, which the Panel has already found to be a deliberate misspelling chosen with the Complainant in mind, and amounts to typosquatting.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, there is strong evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolved to an online shop which reproduced the Complainant’s trademark ‘NUXE”, get-up, images from its official website, and offered the Complainant’s trademarked branded cosmetics.<\/p>\n
The evidence shows that the Respondent would have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the “NUXE” and NUXE PARIS” trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel finds such conduct is intended to mislead users into believing that they are dealing with the Complainant or with an authorised reseller. Use of a domain name in this way, to impersonate the trademark owner and to sell goods branded with the Complainant’s trademark, falls squarely within paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n
Further, the evidence also shows that searches for <nunixe.com> in common search engines return results that predominantly relate to the Complainant and its official website. The Respondent’s choice of a registrant name “ASD SDA” is also curious as it seems to the Panel that it is intended to mask the true identity of the Respondent. Such purported use seeks to impersonate the Complainant and its trademarks, and accordingly the Panel finds that such use is not for bona fide commercial purposes but rather an attempt to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name website.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has not filed any response in this proceeding and has therefore not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions on bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is made out.<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
Notification of proceedings to the Respondent<\/strong><\/p>\n On April 16, 2026, the CAC by its non‑standard communication stated as follows (omitting irrelevant parts):<\/p>\n “Please be aware that the CAC was not able to send the written notice to the Respondent as the address provided by the Registrar in Registrar verification does not exist. The postal service provider was not able to deliver a written notice to such an address.<\/p>\n No other address for correspondence was found on the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n As far as the e-mail notice is concerned, we received a confirmation that the e-mail notice sent to < postmaster@nunixe.com> was returned back non-delivered as the e-mail address had permanent fatal errors. The e-mail notice was also sent to <dariusshalanda3@gmail.com>, but we never received any proof of delivery or notification of non-delivery.<\/p>\n No further e‑mail address could be found on the disputed site.<\/p>\n The Respondent never accessed the online platform.”<\/p>\n Given the reasonable measures employed by CAC as set out in the above non‑standard communication, the Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"William Lye OAM KC"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-04-26 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for the sign “NUXE” in various countries all around the world, which were registered years before creation of the disputed domain name, such as but not limited to:<\/p>\n Mark (as referred to)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Office \/ territory<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Application \/ registration No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Status<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Classes (at least)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Filing date (MM‑DD‑YYYY)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n NUXE (first French registration comprising NUXE + logo)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n France (FR)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 94518763<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registered<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 3, 5, 25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 05‑02‑1994<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n NUXE (EU trademark)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n EUIPO (EM)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 008774531<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registered<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 3, 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 12‑22‑2009<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n NUXE (international registration)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n WIPO (WO)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1072247<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registered<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 3, 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑14‑2011<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n NUXE (Canada)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Canada (CA)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1515150<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registered<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 3, 44<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑14‑2011<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n NUXE PARIS + logo (French)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n France (FR)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 97667052<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registered<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 3, 5, 16, 25, 28, 42, 45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 07‑10‑1997<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n NUXE PARIS + logo (international)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n WIPO (WO)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 684940<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registered<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 3, 25, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 12‑24‑1997<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names under various extensions, such as but not limited to:<\/p>\n Domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Extension<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Creation \/ reservation date (MM‑DD‑YYYY)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Expiry date (MM‑DD‑YYYY)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n nuxe.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑27‑1998<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑26‑2027<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxe.fr<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .fr<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 06‑25‑2008 (registered since 12‑28‑1998)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 03‑04‑2027<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxe.eu<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .eu<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 06‑08‑2006<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 05‑31‑2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxe.ca<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .ca<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 03‑02‑2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 03‑02‑2027<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxe.us<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .us<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑01‑2008<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 01‑31‑2027<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxebeauty.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑13‑2021<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑13‑2027<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n frnuxe.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 05‑01‑2023<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 05‑01‑2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n groupenuxe.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑17‑2021<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02‑17‑2027<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxeshop.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 05‑25‑2022<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 05‑25‑2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxemail.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 06‑03‑2024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 06‑03‑2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxetest.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 11‑28‑2023<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 11‑28‑2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxespa.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 07‑03‑2020<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 07‑03‑2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n nuxepartners.com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n .com<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 04‑27‑2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 04‑27‑2026<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Its website located at www.nuxe.com is accessible all around the world.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"nunixe.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n