Mysoneparubenefits.com + 4 more domains

The timeline behind mysoneparubenefits.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Société de Négoce et de Participation v. Shi Lei Case No. D2025-4230 1. The Parties Complainant is Société de Négoce et de Participation, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. Respondent is Shi Lei, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <mysoneparubenefits.com>, <mysoneparusbenefit.com>, <mysoneparusbenfits.com>, <mysoneparusbenifits.com>, and <soneparusbenefits.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2025. On October 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 16, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names that differed from the named Respondent (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 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 October 21, 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 October 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 12, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 14, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Jeffrey D. Steinhardt as sole panelist in this matter on November 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 Complainant is a French multinational holding company whose group members operate B2B-level sales and distribution of electrical supplies and components across the world, reporting EUR 23 billion in sales in 2020. Complainant owns many international registrations for its SONEPAR trademarks including, for example: International Trademark Registration No. 736078, registered on February 3, 2000, in classes 9, 11, 37 and 39; United States of America (“United States”) Trademark Registration No. 7256573, registered January 2, 2024, in classes 7, 9, 11, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, and 42; and International Trademark Registration No. 1654996, dated December 3, 2021, designating inter alia China, United States, European Union and United Kingdom. The disputed domain names were all registered on February 28, 2025. They resolve either to (1) parking pages with pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertisements, in one case to third-party electrical suppliers and services, (2) to apparently random commercial webpages, or (3) to webpages that are reported by users’ browser security or antivirus software to be dangerous or unsafe. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. Notably, Complainant contends that Respondent’s intention is to use the confusingly similar disputed domain names to lure customers and employees seeking to access Complainant’s official website, probably to receive PPC revenues. Complainant avers that the destination pages to which the disputed domain names resolve frequently shift and are “random and unpredictable websites, which is inherently unsafe and may expose users to shocking or inappropriate material, including pornographic content, gambling platforms, or various marketplace pages”. Complainant contends that such circumstances are often evidence of fraudulent infrastructure. Complainant also avers that the disputed domain names are configured to be used with email servers, which, Complainant alleges, Respondent likely plans to use in phishing or other fraudulent schemes. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Registrar identified Respondent as registrant for each of the disputed domain names listed above. As a preliminary point, therefore, the Panel finds that it is unnecessary to consider Complainant’s request for consolidation in this proceeding because a single proceeding may cover multiple disputed domain names registered by single registrant under Rules, paragraph 3(c). page 3 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. 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 finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are 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, the words “benefit” or “benefits” and other misspellings of those words along with “my”, “u” or “us”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of those terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds that the first element of Policy, paragraph 4(a) has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which 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. The Panel accepts Complainant’s undisputed allegations that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to make use of the SONEPAR marks and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel notes that the disputed domain names resolve to websites that either (1) are parking pages with commercial PPC links, (2) randomly resolve to websites unrelated to Complainant’s marks, or (3) are malicious websites blocked by operating system, browser, or antivirus software. In the Panel’s view, none of these uses can reasonably be considered to be bona fide or fair use in the sense of the Policy. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. To the extent that Complainant has made unopposed allegations that the disputed domain names were configured for email use and potential phishing activities, the Panel also notes that panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity such as phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. page 4 The Panel finds that the second element of Policy, paragraph 4(a) 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 registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Panel takes notice that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter. A brief search of the Center’s published UDRP decisions against Respondent reveals that over 50 separate UDRP proceedings since 2014 have found that Respondent abusively registered and used hundreds of domain names in bad faith. Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent’s bad faith is established under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(ii)(a respondent’s pattern of abusive registrations may be evidence of bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy; see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2. The Panel also notes that Respondent clearly targeted Complainant by adding in each of the disputed domain names the long-established SONEPAR mark along with a few words (or misspellings of words) and a few letters. Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain names (without authorization of the trademark holder) to route Internet users to websites displaying PPC links and websites hosting malicious and potentially dangerous content. In the Panel’s view, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks as provided under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)(additional evidence of bad faith). While 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, other circumstances may also 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. The Panel finds that Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint in these proceedings is further evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that the third element of Policy paragraph 4(a) 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 names <mysoneparubenefits.com>, <mysoneparusbenefit.com>, <mysoneparusbenfits.com>, <mysoneparusbenifits.com>, and <soneparusbenefits.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Jeffrey D. Steinhardt/ Jeffrey D. Steinhardt Sole Panelist Date: December 4, 2025

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