Snet.info

The timeline behind snet.info

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Banque et Caisse d'Epargne de l'Etat, Luxembourg v. yali Case No. D2024-0983 1. The Parties The Complainant is Banque et Caisse d'Epargne de l'Etat, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, represented by Office Freylinger S.A., Luxembourg. The Respondent is yali, Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <snet.info> is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 6, 2024. On March 6, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 6, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 11, 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 March 14, 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 March 15, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 5, 2024. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 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. page 2 The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is Banque et Caisse d'Epargne de l'Etat, Luxembourg, a Luxembourgish company operating in the banking field and owning several trademark registrations for S-NET, a denomination used by the Complainant for its banking app, among which: - Benelux Trademark Registration No. 644249 for S-NET, registered on August 1, 1999; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 009110644 for S-NET, registered on July 1, 2012; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. 00909110644 for S-NET, registered on July 1, 2012. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, “https://bcee.snet.lu” being its official website. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on January 22, 2024, and it resolves to the website “https://dan.com”, in which it is offered for sale for USD 300. 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 states that the disputed domain name is almost identical to its trademark S-NET, the only difference being the missing hyphen in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark S-NET is known in the banking field. The Complainant states that it was ranked among the 10 safest banks in the world in 2019. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the latter was registered by the Respondent essentially in order to resell it to the Complainant for a high price likely in excess of the Respondent’s costs related to the disputed domain name. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record. A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.3. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (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 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. It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.info”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1. 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. While 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 often impossible 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. 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 present 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 page 4 demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain name redirects to a website in which it is offered for sale for USD 300, a price more likely than not in excess of the Respondent’s costs related to the disputed domain name. Noting the composition of the disputed domain name, that the Complainant uses a domain name consisting of “snet” without the hyphen (when compared to the Complainant’s trademark) for its main website, and that the Complainant’s banking app operates under the trademark S-NET, t he Panel believes that the offer for sale of the disputed domain name with this price would be of interest mainly to the Complainant (or by someone trying to trade off the Complainant’s trademark rights). 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. 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. In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark S-NET in the banking field is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith, since the offer to sell the disputed domain name for a price of USD 300, a price which is more likely than not in excess of the Respondent’s costs related to the disputed domain name that the Panel believes would be of interest mainly to the Complainant (or by someone trying to trade off the Complainant’s trademark rights), is evidence of bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the mere deletion of the hyphen (in the same manner as used by the Complainant for its main website), also noting the Complainant’s use of S-NET for its banking app, further supports a finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. Based on the available record, 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, <snet.info>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2024

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.