Introduction
A UDRP decision ordering the transfer of a domain name does not, by itself, bind a French court subsequently asked to rule on a dispute concerning that domain name or its use. The Paris Court of Appeal decision of February 20, 2026 (Paris Court of Appeal, February 20, 2026, Case No. 24/17961) provides a clear illustration: a WIPO administrative panel had ordered the transfer of <banque-delubac.com>, while the French courts later assessed the disputed uses independently under French trademark law.
This autonomy follows from the nature of the UDRP itself. It is an extrajudicial mechanism embedded in the contractual domain-name registration system, not a court judgment with res judicata effect. Paragraph 4(k) of the UDRP expressly preserves the parties’ ability to submit the dispute to a competent court for independent resolution. The Delubac decision therefore illustrates why domain-name recovery strategy can coordinate extrajudicial and judicial remedies without treating their legal tests as interchangeable.
For more information on UDRP procedures, we invite you to consult our previously published article: " What is the UDRP? A Comprehensive Guide to Protecting Your Domain Names ".
Facts: domain names used as platforms for criticism
Banque Delubac, the owner of trademarks incorporating the DELUBAC sign and long-standing domain names, was confronted with the registration, by a former employee, of several domain names reproducing or evoking its name, including <banque-delubac.com>, <affaires-delubac.com> and <harcelement-ambiance.com>. The related websites published testimonials, critical material or links to press articles concerning the bank.
The bank considered that this use infringed its trademark rights and damaged its reputation. The bank sought the removal of certain websites, the transfer of the domain names and damages. Under paragraph 4(i) of the UDRP, however, the remedies available in UDRP proceedings are limited to the cancellation or transfer of the domain name. The disputed pages, by contrast, presented themselves as informational or criticism websites and stated that they were not official bank websites and did not sell goods or services.
Proceedings and claims: UDRP and court litigation
The WIPO UDRP proceeding
The bank filed a UDRP complaint concerning <banque-delubac.com> and <affaires-delubac.com>. In its decision of January 1, 2024 (Decision of the Administrative Panel Banque Delubac Et Cie v. Samir Laroussi, Case No. D2023-4523), the WIPO Administrative Panel distinguished between the two names. It ordered the transfer of <banque-delubac.com>, finding in particular that combining “banque” with DELUBAC did not clearly signal a criticism website and could reinforce the appearance of an association with the bank. By contrast, transfer of <affaires-delubac.com> was denied, as the wording and non-commercial context supported a different assessment. In this case, the Panel considered that the addition of the term “affaires” suggested that the website had a critical purpose and, given its genuinely non-commercial nature, the Respondent could rely on a legitimate interest based on the exercise of the right to criticism and freedom of expression.
The claims before the French courts
In parallel, the bank had brought proceedings before the Paris Judicial Court. After its main claims were dismissed, it appealed, arguing in particular that the domain names and website content interfered with its trademark rights, including the reputation claimed for its trademark, and harmed its image. It also relied on the WIPO decision as part of its argument on the likelihood of confusion and sought compensation for the damage it claimed to have suffered.
An important procedural point should be clarified: before the Court of Appeal, no new request for the cancellation or transfer of <banque-delubac.com> was made. The Court was therefore not called upon to rule on the merits of the transfer ordered by WIPO, and its judgment does not formally “reverse” the UDRP decision.
Decision: an independent assessment under French law
The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the judgment and dismissed the bank’s claims. As regards the alleged infringement of the well-known trademark, it recalled that the legal regime relied upon requires the use of an identical or similar sign in the course of trade in relation to identical or similar goods or services (article L.713-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code). The disputed websites were not being used to identify or market competing goods or services; they mainly published testimonials or press material.
The Court also noted that the websites expressly stated that they were unofficial and sold no goods or services. In those circumstances, the operation of <banque-delubac.com> and <affaires-delubac.com> could not establish the alleged trademark infringement. <harcelement-ambiance.com>, which did not reproduce the DELUBAC sign and was likewise not used in the course of trade, could not support that claim either.
The key point is therefore not a direct conflict between WIPO and the Court, but the fact that they were answering different legal questions:
- The WIPO Administrative Panel was required to assess, under the specific criteria of the UDRP, whether the conditions for ordering the transfer of the domain names were met.
- The Court of Appeal, for its part, had to determine whether the disputed use infringed the rights asserted by the bank under French trademark law.
For further insight into the relationship between UDRP proceedings and actions before national courts, we invite you to consult our previously published article: “A judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal of 8 November 2016 confirms the independence of national courts from WIPO decisions.”
Significance of the decision: judicial independence from domain name procedures
UDRP panels and national courts apply different legal tests
The UDRP requires the complainant to establish three cumulative elements:
- The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights,
- The domain name holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name,
- The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The French courts are not required to mechanically reassess these three criteria. They rule on the legal grounds submitted to them, in light of the specific requirements of French law.
The fact that different conclusions may be reached does not therefore necessarily mean that one of the decision-makers was wrong. Rather, it reflects the fact that the legal characterization of a given conduct depends on the applicable legal framework, the precise nature of the claims brought, and the evidence submitted. The two bodies may therefore reach different assessments in relation to the same domain name without their decisions being legally contradictory: they do not rule on the same legal basis, apply the same criteria, or exercise the same powers.
A UDRP decision may inform the judicial analysis, but it does not automatically determine the outcome of court proceedings.
For further information regarding the requirement of registration and use in bad faith, please see our article on: " How does the bad faith duplicate between registration and bad faith use? "
The decision highlights the need to coordinate UDRP and litigation strategies
For trademark owners, a domain-name procedure should not be selected in isolation from potential litigation. Before filing a complaint, the desired outcome should first be identified – rapid transfer, cessation of use, damages or action against unlawful content – together with the legal bases that might later be relied upon in court. For a broader overview of the available mechanisms, see our Complete Guide 2026: Domain Name Disputes – UDRP, SYRELI and International Alternatives.
SYRELI and PARL Expert operate differently but remain subject to judicial review
For .fr domain names, SYRELI and PARL Expert are administered within the Afnic framework and do not follow the UDRP regime. However, Article L. 45-6 of the French Postal and Electronic Communications Code expressly provides that decisions taken by the registry may be challenged before the judicial courts. An extrajudicial or administrative decision therefore does not remove the possibility of judicial review.
Conclusion
The Paris Court of Appeal decision of February 20, 2026 confirms a central point in domain-name litigation: a UDRP decision does not, by itself, determine the outcome of proceedings before the French courts. The UDRP and national litigation may concern the same factual situation while applying different legal tests, causes of action and remedies.
For trademark owners, this autonomy calls for a coordinated approach: identify the precise use made of the domain name, distinguish cybersquatting from criticism, confusion and commercial activity, select the procedure that matches the desired result, and anticipate from the outset the possibility of court proceedings.
Dreyfus Law Firm assists its clients in managing complex intellectual property cases, offering personalized advice and comprehensive operational support for the complete protection of intellectual property.
Dreyfus Law Firm works in partnership with a global network of attorneys specializing in Intellectual Property.
Nathalie Dreyfus, with the assistance of the entire Dreyfus team.
Q&A
What evidentiary weight can a UDRP decision have before a French court?
It may be submitted as part of the evidential record and may document the chronology, the parties’ positions or the analysis conducted under the Policy. The court remains free to assess its weight and must decide the claims before it under the applicable law. The UDRP decision does not acquire the authority of a French judicial decision merely because it has been issued.
What happens when a domain-name registrant brings court proceedings after a UDRP transfer decision?
Paragraph 4(k) contains a mechanism under which implementation of the transfer may be deferred where the registrant provides, within the period specified by the Policy, evidence that qualifying court proceedings have been commenced. Timing is therefore critical: proceedings initiated too late may not prevent the registrar from technically implementing the panel decision.
Which other legal grounds may be relevant when a non-commercial criticism site falls outside trademark infringement?
The answer depends on the content and context. Depending on the facts, relevant issues may include defamation and press-law rules, unfair competition or denigration where an economic activity is involved, confidentiality, trade secrets, privacy, or rules governing manifestly unlawful content. Each cause of action has its own requirements, limitation periods and evidential rules.
How should a rights holder choose between UDRP, SYRELI/PARL Expert and court proceedings when several routes appear available?
The starting point is the remedy sought, the domain-name extension and the nature of the alleged abuse. An extrajudicial procedure may be appropriate for a rapid transfer or cancellation, while court proceedings may be necessary for damages, broader injunctions or disputes concerning website content. Evidence and the risk of parallel proceedings should also be assessed before the first filing.
Does a “not an official website” disclaimer remove all legal risk associated with a disputed domain name?
Such a statement is one contextual factor, but its weight depends on the overall impression created for internet users. The domain name itself, website presentation, content, redirections, commercial activity and the registrant’s conduct remain relevant. A disclaimer of affiliation therefore cannot be assessed in isolation.
This publication is intended for general public guidance and to highlight issues. It is not intended to apply to specific circumstances or to constitute legal advice.