Bpay7.com

The timeline behind bpay7.com

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 Bpay Pty Ltd and Bpay Group Pty Ltd v. Jerry Ang, 11 Case No. D2025-1054 1. The Parties Complainants are Bpay Pty Ltd, Australia and Bpay Group Pty Ltd, Australia, represented by Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Australia. Respondent is Jerry Ang, 11, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bpay7.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 March 14, 2025. On March 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 14, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 to Complainant on March 17, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 8, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 9, 2025. Respondent sent emails to the Center on April 15 and 17, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 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 According to the Complaint, the two Complainants are wholly-owned subsidiaries of BPAY Group Holding Pty Ltd, a payment services provider headquartered in Sydney, Australia. Henceforth, the Panel will refer to Complainants in the singular, as there is no difference between them that is relevant to this proceeding. According to Complainant, it “operates and manages BPAY Payments (or the BPAY Scheme), an electronic bill payment system that allows Australian consumers and businesses to make payments through their financial institution’s online banking service or via BPAY View.” Complainant asserts that “BPAY is available in the online banking of over 150 banks, credit unions, building societies and neo banks like Up, as well as apps like Beem which allows users to pay, request, transfer and split money instantly.” According to Complainant, more than 55,000 businesses offer BPAY to help their customers pay bills securely. Complainant holds several trademark registrations in Australia and New Zealand for the mark BPAY, both word marks and figurative marks, including: Australia Reg. No. AU 735522 for the figurative mark BPAY, with a May 28, 1997 priority date in connection with “financial services including electronic/telephonic payment services”; Australia Reg No. AU 742609 for the word mark BPAY, with an August 28, 1997 priority date in connection with “financial services including electronic/telephonic payment services”. Complainant operates a commercial website at <bpay.com.au>, and has a social media presence (including 2.24K YouTube subscribers). The Domain Name was registered on August 20, 2024. As of January 31, 2025, the Domain Name resolved to a website that appears to offer commercial gaming services. The site invites users to create an account by supplying personal financial information. Respondent’s site also uses a logo for the letter “B” that is almost identical to the “B” used by Complainant in its logo. Respondent’s site also features a reference to “BPAY7 Partnership,” using Complainant’s stylized “B” logo, in what Complainant calls an attempt to create a false impression that Complainant and Respondent’s gaming site are somehow in a partnership. As noted above, Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint in this proceeding. Respondent did, however, send the Center the following email on April 15, 2025: “I acknowledge the missed deadline for submission of the Response. I kindly request that the Administrative Panel consider my Response, which I am submitting now despite the delay. We understand the concerns raised in the Complaint and would like to inform you that we are willing to remove the website and discontinue any use of the domain name in question. However, we kindly request a short period of time to make the necessary arrangements to take the site offline. We appreciate your understanding and respectfully ask that the Panel take into account our good-faith efforts to resolve the matter.” Later on April 15, 2025, Respondent sent another email to the Center, stating: “My name is JERRY, the registrant of the domain name BPAY7. I acknowledge the Complaint and understand the concerns raised by the Complainant, who I assume is associated with “BPAY.” I would like to clarify the following: 1. I registered the domain bpay7 without any intention to infringe on any trademark or to mislead users. 2. I was unaware of any rights the Complainant may have had in the name “BPAY” at the time of registration. 3. The domain has not been actively used for any commercial purpose, nor have I tried to benefit from any confusion with the Complainant. 4. I am willing to remove the website and discontinue any use of the domain name. If necessary, I am also open to transferring the domain name to the page 3 Complainant. I kindly ask the Panel to take this explanation into account when reviewing the case, and I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused.” Finally, on April 17, 2025, Respondent sent a third email to the Center, stating: “I refer to the Center’s recent communication regarding the possibility of suspending the UDRP proceeding to explore a potential settlement. As the Respondent, I would like to express my willingness to cooperate and resolve this matter amicably. As previously stated, I am open to transferring the domain name bpay7 to the Complainant in order to bring this matter to a close. Should the Complainant be open to this, I respectfully invite them to submit a request for suspension in accordance with the Center’s procedures. Thank you for your attention, and I remain available for any further steps toward settlement.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply formally to Complainant’s contentions. The entirety of Respondent’s substantive statements in this case are quoted above in the “Factual Background” section. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark BPAY through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The Domain Name entirely incorporates the BPAY mark and adds the number 7. The BPAY mark remains clearly recognizable within the Domain name notwithstanding the additional number. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or page 4 (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes, on the record presented and on a balance of probabilities, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in connection with the Domain Name. Respondent claims in an email that it registered the Domain Name without knowledge of Complainant’s BPAY mark. It is impossible to credit this assertion, given Respondent’s use of a logo virtually identical to Complainant’s logo. Similarly, Respondent’s claim not to have used the Domain Name for any commercial purpose can scarcely be believed. Respondent’s website looks like commercial gaming website, and it even invites visitors to register with their personal financial information in order to play at the site. Respondent’s effort to suggest a “partnership” between the gaming site and Complainant’s business further underscores the illegitimacy of Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under the Policy. The Panel incorporates its discussion above in the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” section. On this record, the Panel concludes that Respondent clearly had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain Name. This is a clear case of bad faith registration and use within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name <bpay7.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Robert A. Badgley/ Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: May 12, 2025

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