BPCE v Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon, Bungee

WIPO Case No. D2025-2403

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BPCE v. Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon, Bungee

Case No. D2025-2403

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Leonardo JavierBarroso Falcon, Bungee, Peru.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <caisse-epargne-protection.com> is registered with Nicenic International Group

Co., Limited (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2025.
On June 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 19, 2025, 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) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 26, 2025, 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 June 26, 2025.

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 July 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 13, 2025.

The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on August 15, 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

36 million customers. The Complainant is present in more than 40 countries via its various subsidiaries.	The Complainant is one of the largest banking groups in France with 105,000 employees, serving a total of banking networks, Banque Populaire and Caisse d’Epargne.
The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations. By way of example:
The French trademark CAISSE D´EPARGNE with registration number 1658134 filed and registered on April 26, 1991.
The French trademark LA CAISSE D´EPARGNE with registration number 3155888 filed and registered on March 27, 2002.
The European Union trademark CAISSE D´EPARGNE with registration number 000637504 filed on September 24, 1997, and registered on April 8, 1999.
The Complainant is owner of the domain name <caisse-epargne.com> registered on October 6, 1998, and <caisse-epargne.fr>, registered on January 16, 2009.
The Panel recognizes the distinctive and well-known character of the Complainant’s CAISSE D’EPARGNE trademark.
The disputed domain name <caisse-epargne-protection.com> was registered on April 7, 2025, and is inactive.
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 the confusing similarity.
The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent has no authorization or license to use its trademarks in a domain name. Nor the Respondent is the owner of a trademark or tradename that matches with the disputed domain name. Accordingly, says the Complainant, the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services.
With regard to the third requirement, the Complainant alleges that registration of the disputed domain name was in bad faith because its trademarks are famous and thus known by the Respondent, the disputed domain name is inactive and by hiding his identity in the WhoIs database, the Respondent acted in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.

There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f) of the Rules to prevent the Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to file a Response. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration.

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 Panel finds the mark CAISSE D´EPARGNE 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, “protection” plus hyphens between the three main words of the disputed domain name 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.

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

page 4

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.

The Panel notes that both the silence of the Respondent and the inaction of the disputed domain since its registration give little or no room to assess whether the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests. In these circumstances the Panel accepts the Complainant’s prima facie case that none of the circumstances depicted in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies in this case.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

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.

On balance, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name due to their reputation and distinctiveness. This previous knowledge is tantamount to bad faith registration. The Panel notes that the lack of response from the Respondent strengthens an assessment of bad faith.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Furthermore, the mere registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the itself create a presumption of bad faith.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed

domain name which is inherently misleading, and the failure of the respondent to submit a response, and
finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not

prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

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 <caisse-epargne-protection.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Manuel Moreno-Torres/
Manuel Moreno-Torres
Sole Panelist
Date: August 29, 2025