BPCE v Plaizium Shopping, Plaizium

WIPO Case No. D2025-1568

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BPCE v. Plaizium Shopping, Plaizium

Case No. D2025-1568

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Plaizium Shopping, Plaizium, Benin.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bpceinvestmnt.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 17, 2025.
On April 22, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which partly differed from the named Respondent (Plaizium) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 25, 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 April 25, 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 April 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 20, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Mireille Buydens as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is one of the largest banking groups in France, working through its two major banking networks, Banque Populaire and Caisse d’Epargne, as well as different subsidiaries. It has more than 105,000 employees and serves 36 million customers. It is present in more than 40 countries via its various

subsidiaries.

The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations for the BPCE brand (hereafter “the BPCE

Trademark”), including the following:

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 8375842 for BPCE (word mark), registered on

January 12, 2010;

- French Trademark Registration No. 3653852 for BPCE (word mark), registered on May 29, 2009;

- United States of America Trademark Registration No. 5743541 for GROUPE BPCE and Device,

registered on May 7, 2019; and

- International Trademark registration No 1033662 for (word and device mark) registered on December 15, 2009, covering notably Algeria and Morocco.

The Complainant also owns directly and through its subsidiaries domain names which comprise the BPCE to the Complainant’s institutional portal).

The disputed domain name was registered on February 22, 2025.

According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name leads to a website with the message “Index of ” with no content and the Mail Exchange (“MX”) servers are activated. At the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name directs to a website in Italian proposing financial services for individuals (offering consumption loans) under the brand “Credito Plus”. The website proposes to consumers to enter their personal details to get a loan offer. It contains a contact address in Rome and a contact email using the disputed domain name ([…]@bpceinvestmnt.com).

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.

First, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BPCE Trademark as it incorporates this Trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the suffix “investmnt” (“investment” with a spelling error), which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The generic Top-Level

Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Trademark.

Second, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no trademark or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name and has not received any authorization, license, or consent, be it directly or indirectly, to register or use the BPCE Trademark, including in, or as part of, a domain name.

page 3

The Complainant submits that, taking into account the reputation of the BPCE Trademark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s Trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to generate a likelihood

of confusion with the BPCE Trademark. It also submits that the MX servers have been activated, which allows the Respondent to create an email address using the disputed domain name for phishing attack (which is of particular concern in the banking business given the sensitive nature of the data processed).

The Complainant finally submits that the Respondent tried to hide its address, which also points to its bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Dealing with the Respondent’s failure to file a Response to the Complaint, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with a provision of, or requirement under these Rules, the panel shall be entitled to draw such inferences from this omission, as it considers appropriate.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements in order to succeed in its Complaint:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(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 being 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 for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the BPCE Trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, with the addition of the suffix “investmnt”. Although the addition of this term 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 BPCE Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Further, the gTLD “.com” is a standard registration requirement and does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the BPCE Trademark.

Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BPCE Trademark for the purposes of the

Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

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 evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Respondent is not licensed by, nor affiliated with, the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence of use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, either. On the contrary, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the BPCE Trademark with the mere addition of the term “investmnt”, id est the word “investment” with a misspelling (the second “e” of “investment” is missing). This term is descriptive of the Complainant’s financial activities. As a result, the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation, which cannot constitute fair use as it wrongly 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.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy. The Panel notes that the Respondent has composed the disputed domain name by combining the Complainant’s BPCE Trademark with the suffix “investmnt”, a misspelling of the word “investment”, which is a descriptive term referring to the Complainant’s financial activities. By doing so, the disputed domain name is very well suited to confuse Internet users into believing that the Respondent is affiliated with, or endorsed by, the Complainant. The Respondent has sought to create a misleading impression of association with the Complainant, which is a well-known company in the field of financial services. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name currently resolves to a website offering financial services (loans to consumers), which reinforces the finding that Internet users may indeed wrongly believe that the company offering personal loans under the disputed domain name is endorsed by the Complainant (which is not the case). In the circumstances, and in the absence of any explanation from the Respondent for its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel can only reasonably infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s BPCE Trademark and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the goodwill attached to it by causing confusion among Internet users.

page 5

Besides, the Panel notes that a quick search for the letters “bpce” online would have revealed to the registration of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.2.2.

Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its BPCE Trademark. As a result, the Panel finds that the

The Panel also notes that the Respondent’s address given to the Registrar is incomplete (there is no house number), which prevented the courier from delivering the Center’s written communication, which also points to bad faith registration and use.

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 <bpceinvestmnt.com> be transferred to the Complainant

/Mireille Buydens/
Mireille Buydens
Sole Panelist
Date: June 3, 2025