BPCE v aloussdi marc

WIPO Case No. D2023-5137

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BPCE v. aloussdi marc

Case No. D2023-5137

1. The Parties

The Complainant is BPCE, France, represented by DBK Law Firm, France.

The Respondent is aloussdi marc, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bpce-group.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 8,
2023. On December 8, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 11, 2023, 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 (Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 13,
2023, 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 14, 2023.

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 19, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 8, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 10, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2024. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is BPCE, one of the largest financial and banking company in France, that has been operating worldwide for many years.

It owns various trademark registrations for BPCE, such as:

- European Union trademark BPCE & device, registered under number 8375875 on January 12, 2010,
for services in class 36;

- European Union trademark BPCE, registered under number 8375842 on January 12, 2010, for
services in class 36;

- French trademark BPCE & device, registered under number 3653852 on May 29, 2009, for services in
classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45;

- French trademark BPCE & device, registered under number 3658703 on June 19, 2009, for services
in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45;

- International trademark BPCE & device, registered under number 1033662 on December 15, 2009, for
services in class 36; and

- United States of America trademark Groupe BPCE & device, registered under number 5743541 on
May 7, 2019, for services in class 36.

The disputed domain name is <bpce-group.com> and was registered on October 16, 2023. It currently does not resolve to any active web page but it used to resolve to a website offering banking services. In addition, mail exchange (“MX”) servers have been set up in relation with the disputed domain name.

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, on the ground inter alia that the disputed domain name used to resolve to a website offering banking services and that MX records have been set up in relation with the disputed domain name.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that:

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

Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i));

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

4(a)(ii)); and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)).

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.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “-group”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, 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.

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.

page 4

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name and does not make any bona fide or legitimate noncommercial use of the same.

Based on the available record, 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.

The Complainant has substantiated the fact that its trademark BPCE that has been registered and used for years, is distinctive and now benefits from a high level of public awareness.

Earlier UDRP decisions have acknowledged the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g.:
BPCE v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Fransis Coarno, Danstic, WIPO Case No. D2020-0967;
BPCE v. Pierre Agou Michel, WIPO Case No. D2020-2361; BPCE v. Seymi Lozano, WIPO Case No.
D2022-4185; and BPCE v. Emmanuel Asamoah, WIPO Case No. D2022-3866.

Due to the longstanding use and reputation of the Complainant’s mark and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, the Respondent could not reasonably be unaware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name.

Further, the Complainant has filed evidence showing that the Respondent had set up MX servers in relation with the disputed domain name, thus revealing a possible intention to use the same as an email address.

The Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the

Policy.

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 <bpce-group.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/William Lobelson/
William Lobelson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 24, 2024