Perenco SA v Ahmed Bemba

WIPO Case No. D2025-2239

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Perenco SA v. Ahmed Bemba

Case No. D2025-2239

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Perenco SA, France, represented by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer Paris LLP, France.

The Respondent is Ahmed Bemba, Congo.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <perencocg.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 9, 2025. On
June 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 10, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 13,
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 18, 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 June 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 11, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Respondent submitted an informal communication to the Center.

page 2

The Center appointed David Stone as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 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.

On July 25, 2025, the Complainant requested the suspension of the proceeding for purposes of settlement discussions with the Respondent. On July 29, 2025, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1 suspending the proceeding until August 28, 2025. On August 27, 2025, the Complainant requested the reinstitution of the proceedings and on September 1, 2025, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 2 in which the current proceeding was reinstituted.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant belongs to the Perenco Group, which provides petrol and gas in Europe and worldwide.

Among others, the Complainant owns the following trademark: - European Union trademark no.	10468361 registered on May 9, 2012 in International Classes 35, 37, 39, and 42 (the “Mark”).
The Complainant’s official domain name is <perenco.com>.
On April 4, 2025, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <perencocg.com>. The false email address using the name of a real employee of a company within the Perenco Group, namely Perenco Congo. The Complainant also provided evidence that the Respondent had used that false email address to send emails to the Complainant’s bank containing the real employee’s signature block in an attempt to authorize a payment by the Complainant. At the time of this decision, the Respondent hosts a “launching soon” webpage at the disputed domain name with a “contact us” webform.
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 contends that, under the first element, the disputed domain name incorporates the Mark in its entirety and the added term “cg” will immediately be understood by Internet users as referring to the country code for the Congo (a country in which the Complainant’s group of companies is present, notably through its subsidiary Perenco Congo).
Under the second element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has only used the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users, particularly the Complainant’s bank, for financial gain as part of a fraudulent scheme. The Complainant has not granted any license to the Respondent to use the Mark, nor has it authorized it to register or use the disputed domain name.
Under the third element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has a clear intention to commit criminal offences, including because the Respondent created an email address comprised of the disputed domain name and used it to impersonate an employee of the Complainant’s group company in an attempt to authorize payments from the Complainant’s bank account. The Complainant further contends that the
Respondent is attempting to collect fraudulently third parties’ personal data via a “contact us” webform on the “coming soon” webpage hosted at the disputed domain name.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

On July 17, 2025, the Respondent sent an unsolicited and out-of-time filing to the Center requesting that its account be deleted and claiming to have already done so. Having regard to the need to ensure that the parties are treated with equality and that each party should be given a fair opportunity to present its case, under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel does not consider this filing admissible. Even if the

Respondent’s out-of-time filing had been admissible, the Panel notes it would not have made a difference to the outcome of the decision.

6. Discussion and Findings
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 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.

Although the addition of other terms, here, “cg”, 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 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

Further, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed phishing,
impersonation, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here, claimed phishing, impersonation, or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. Many such cases involve a respondent’s use of a domain name to send deceptive emails (e.g., to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent: (i) has created the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar for the reasons already given; (ii) used the disputed domain name to create a false email address using the name of a real employee of Perenco Congo; (iii) used that false email address to send emails to the Complainant’s bank containing the real employee’s signature block in an attempt to

authorize a payment by the Complainant; and (iv) hosts a “launching soon” page at the disputed domain
name with a “contact us” webform.

Further, the Respondent has not attempted to refute the Complainant’s contentions, which casts additional doubt on the nature of its conduct. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel concludes that the actions of the Respondent in choosing the disputed domain name were aimed at the use of a domain name for illegal activity. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <perencocg.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/David Stone/ David Stone Sole Panelist Date: September 2, 2025