Belfius Bank SA / Belfius Bank NV v zahir sanlisoy

WIPO Case No. D2024-5153

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Belfius Bank SA / Belfius Bank NV v. zahir sanlisoy

Case No. D2024-5153

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Belfius Bank SA / Belfius Bank NV, Belgium, internally represented.

The Respondent is zahir sanlisoy, Türkiye.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <rebelbybelfius.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 13,

2024. On December 16, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar

verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 17, 2024, the Registrar transmitted

by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed

domain name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Super Privacy

Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email

communication to the Complainant on December 18, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information

disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The

Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 19, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal

requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 23, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 12, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 14, 2025.

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2025. The

Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a Belgian bank and financial services provider with over 650 agencies and over 5,000

employees.

The Complainant owns trademarks consisting in all or in part of the term “Belfius”, including but not limited to:

- European Union Trademark No. 010581205 for BELFIUS, registered on May 24, 2012, in International

Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45;

- Benelux Trademark registration No. 914650 for BELFIUS, registered on May 10, 2012, in International

Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45;

- Benelux Trademark registration No. 915962 for BELFIUS (figurative), registered on June 11, 2012, in

International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45;

- Benelux Trademark registration No. 915963 for BELFIUS (figurative), registered on June 11, 2012, in

International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45.

The Complainant also owns the Benelux Trademark registration No. 1427730 for RE=BEL, registered on

February 2, 2021, in International Classes 36 and 38.

The Complainant also owns over 200 domain names featuring BELFIUS trademark, including the domain

name <belfius.com>.

The Respondent is Zahir Sanlisoy, from Türkiye.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 4, 2024, the same day that the Complainant filed

the European Union Trademark Filing No. 019100810 for REBEL BY BELFIUS (figurative), in International

Classes 9, 35, 36, 41, and 45. It resolved to an inactive webpage at the time of filing of the Complaint. At

the time of this decision, it is listed for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer

of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks

BELFIUS and REBEL BY BELFIUS.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain

name for legitimate purposes, nor is there any evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain

name in connection with any noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has

no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

That being the case, the Complainant finds that the disputed domain name is likely to make Internet users

assume that the website that is linked to the disputed domain name offers some kind of services supplied by

the Complainant.

According to the Complainant, it has prior rights over the trademark BELFIUS and has not authorized the

Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.

page 3

The Complainant’s intellectual property rights for BELFIUS-formative trademarks and domain names predate

the registration of the disputed domain name.

According to the Complainant, the registration and use of the disputed domain name has been conducted in

bad faith.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following

elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or

threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between

the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the BELFIUS mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the

disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 1.7.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate

rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized

that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task

of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the

respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or

legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with

relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of

proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant

evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

2.1.

page 4

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case

that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has

not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence

demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the

Policy or otherwise.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed

domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable

preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in

connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or

suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy

establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall

be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel finds more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the BELFIUS and

RE=BEL trademarks as the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration date of the

disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name was registered on the same

day that the Complainant filed its European Union trademark application for REBEL BY BELFIUS.

Considering the disputed domain name is identical to the REBEL BY BELFIUS trademark, the Panel also

finds that the Respondent most likely knew of this mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain

name.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain

name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a

respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Taking into account the reputation of the Complainant’s BELFIUS trademark, the composition of the disputed

domain name, the registration date of the disputed domain name, and the lack of response by the

Respondent, the Panel finds that the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad

faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. At the time of this decision, the

disputed domain name is listed for sale, which does not change the Panel’s finding of bad faith under the

Policy.

The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel

orders that the disputed domain name <rebelbybelfius.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mario Soerensen Garcia/

Mario Soerensen Garcia

Sole Panelist

Date: February 5, 2025