Banqmona-fr.online

The timeline behind banqmona-fr.online

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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Monabanq SA v. Speedlight Teck Solutions Case No. D2025-4050 1. The Parties The Complainant is Monabanq SA, France, represented by MEYER & Partenaires, France. The Respondent is Speedlight Teck Solutions, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <banqmona-f r.online> is registered with Upperlink Limited (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 3, 2025. On October 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 8, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 14, 2025, providing the registrant’s contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 22, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 12, 2025. The Center received a third-party email on October 29, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the commencement of the panel appointment process on November 14, 2025. The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on November 20, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 According to information in the Complaint, the Complainant is a French banking company founded in 2006, a subsidiary of the banking group Crédit Mutuel CIC. The Complainant is operating a 100% online banking business through its website at “www.monabanq.com” and through a mobile application named “Monabanq”. The Complainant is the owner of various registered trademarks, such as the French trademark no. 3419108, registered on March 27, 2006, for MONABANQ. in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38, the European Union trademark no. 18064036 for MONABANQ registered on November 6, 2019, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 38, or the International trademark no. 943266 for MONABANQ.COM registered on October 9, 2007, in classes 9, 16, 35, 36 and 38. The Complainant has registered the domain name <monabanq.fr> since March 24, 2006, and the domain name <monabanq.com> since March 23, 2006, which it uses as its of f icial website. The disputed domain name was registered on July 21, 2025, and it does not resolve to an active website. According to information in the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying “Monabanq de France” and inviting first-time users to enroll and open a new account by entering a Us er ID and password. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its trademark MONABANQ and its domain name <monabanq.com>, as it contains both “mona” and “banq”, but in a reversed o rd er. Moreover, the addition of the hyphen and the geographic letters “fr” (f o r France) exacerbates the conf usion as the trademark MONABANQ is specif ically targeted at the French market. As regards the second element, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is not sponsored by or af f iliated with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not given the Respondent the permission to use its trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. Also, the Complainant claims that the Respondent is not currently and has never been known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not actively using the disputed domain name in a bona fide offering of goods and services or f or any legitimate non-commercial or fair purpose. Rather, the website at the disputed domain name appears to be a login portal displaying “Monabanq de France”. It primarily f ocuses on user authentication and basic account access, with limited visible features beyond the login page. It offers users a login page where existing users can access their personal account dashboard by entering a user ID and password. The website at the disputed domain name does not display detailed information about any offerings on the login page itself, and access to full features requires credentials. It lacks visible regulatory details, security certif ications, or in- depth product descriptions. With respect to the third element, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in July 2025, while the Complainant’s trademark rights predate the disputed domain name f or more than 19 years. The Complainant has already established a strong presence on the Internet, as its whole business is made online, through the website at “www.monabanq.com”. The trademark MONABANQ, is strongly distinctive and totally arbitrary for the offered services and the Complainant is the sole company using this spelling of the word “banq”. Thus, the disputed domain name reminds immediately of the trademark MONABANQ of the Complainant. As regards the use, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name ref ers directly to the Complainant in several ways to facilitate fraud and thef t. There is a “open account” form on which the user can provide its personal information and email address, contact address, work status and even the necessity to upload the passport, which indicates that this form may have been placed on this website to collect personal and connection data through the form boxes, undoubtedly for f raudulent purposes like scam or phishing. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. A third p arty that appears to be a lawyer asked for the Complaint to be communicated to him, but no other communication was received from the third p arty or the Respondent. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Likewise, paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, provides that “the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”. No response has been received from the Respondent in this case. Even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, the Complainant still bears the burden of proving that all requirements are f ulf illed. To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisf ied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly 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 has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.2. Concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the reasonable f actual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3. The Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0, and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the consensus views stated therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark because it contains the MONABANQ mark in its entirety, merely swapping the words “mona” and “banq”, which is a distinctive combination of words for banking services, and adding “fr” and a hyphen. These dif f erences do not prevent a finding of conf using similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trad emark, as the Complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. It is the settled view of panels applying the Policy that the generic To p-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (here “.o nline”) may be disregarded under the first element test as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Thus, the Panel disregards the gTLD “.online” f or the purposes of the conf using similarity test. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona f ide of fering of goods or services or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. Rather, according to the unrebutted evidence put forward by the Complainant, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website f eaturing the Complainant’s MONABANQ trademark, fo r a login page which requested personal inf ormation f rom the Internet users. Such use of the disputed domain name does not conf er rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity (here, claimed phishing, impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud) can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Also, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the Respondent’s name does not correspond to any of the terms in the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant had obtained registration of its trademarks. The disputed domain name is conf usingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolved to a login page displaying the Complainant’s trademark and allegedly offered services in the same area of act iv it y. Under these circumstances, there can be little doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the registration date of the disputed domain name. The use of “fr” in the disputed domain name, considering that the Complainant is f ounded in France, and of the “.o nline” gTLD considering that the Complainant provides its services only online f urther supports this finding. page 5 As regards the use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that, according to the unrebutted evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved bef ore the date of the Complaint to a login page described above, displaying the Complainant’s MONABANQ trademark. This amounts to use in bad f aith under the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which is further aggravated by the industry f ield of the Complainant, as banking activities are strictly regulated. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegitimate or unlawful activities, here, claimed impersonation or passing off, phishing, or other type of f raud, constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. The current non-use of the disputed domain name does not preclude a f inding of bad f aith in the circumstances of the case. UDRP panels have established that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) does not prevent a f inding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and all other factors indicating bad f aith. In these circumstances, the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not preclude a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <banqmona-f r.online> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Mihaela Maravela/ Mihaela Maravela Sole Panelist Date: December 3, 2025

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