Bcee-snet-lu.net

The timeline behind bcee-snet-lu.net

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. Mme FABRICE COLLOMB Case No. D2025-4686 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 Mme FABRICE COLLOMB, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bcee-snet-lu.net> is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 12, 2025. On November 12, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 12, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 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 November 14, 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 November 14, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 4, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 5, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 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 The Complainant is a Luxembourgish company, incorporated in 1989. The Complainant is well known in the bank sector and provides retail, corporate and private banking services. BCEE is a widely used abbreviation for Banque et Caisse d’Épargne de l’État, Luxembourg (which translates literally to “Bank and Savings Bank of the State, Luxembourg”; also known under the trade name “Spuerkeess”). S-NET is the Complainant’s free online and mobile banking service platform called. It allows customers to view account and credit card transactions, make payments, send secure messages to the bank, find branches or ATMs and simulate personal or mortgage loans. The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark rights on the sign “BCEE”: - European Union wordmark BCEE No. 009110537, filed on May 17, 2010, registered on November 2, 2010, and duly renewed for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45; - United Kingdom wordmark BCEE No. UK00909110537, filed on May 17, 2010, registered on November 2, 2010, and duly renewed for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45; - Swiss wordmark BCEE No. 615156, filed on December 30, 2010, registered on May 10, 2011, and duly renewed for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 45; - United Kingdom wordmark BCEE No. UK00003345047, filed on October 12, 2018 and registered on December 28, 2018, for services in class 36. In addition, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <bcee.lu> which was been registered since March 22, 2016, and which name is used by the Complainant for a website dedicated to BCEE/Spuerkeess retail customers. The Complainant is also the owner of the following trademark rights on the sign S-NET: - Benelux wordmark S-NET No. 644249, filed on April 12, 1999, registered on August 1, 1999, and duly renewed for services in class 36; - European Union wordmark S-NET No. 009110644, filed on May 17, 2010, registered on July 1, 2012, and duly renewed for services in classes 35, 36, 38, 41; - United Kingdom wordmark S-NET No. UK00909110644, filed on May 17, 2010, registered on July 1, 2012, and duly renewed for services in classes 35, 36, 38, 41. In addition, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <snet.lu> which was on March 22, 2016, and which is used by the Complainant for a website providing secure online banking services for BCEE/Spuerkeess customers. Specifically, it serves as the portal for accessing S-Net and other e-banking services. The disputed domain name was registered on June 2, 2025. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 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. page 3 Notably, the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s wordmark registrations save for the addition of the nondistinctive generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net” and the addition of the abbreviation “lu”. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nor has the Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use and register its trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the Complainant ́s trademarks. The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Thus, the fact that the Respondent registered a domain which is highly similar to the Complainant's trademarks cannot be pure chance but indicates that the Respondent knew or at least should have known the existence of Complainant’s trademarks BCEE and S-NET at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the fact that the disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks and includes the additional element “lu”, strongly suggests that the disputed domain name was intended for phishing or other fraudulent purposes, which will constitute bad faith use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. 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 the two trademarks and service marks BCEE and S-NET respectively for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the marks are reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. page 4 Although the addition of other terms here, “lu”, 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 marks 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. In the absence of any explanation by the Respondent, the Panel finds that the inclusion of the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name signals an intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting information on or from the Complainant. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not offered any explanation for having registered a domain name that is quasi-identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trademarks. Given the circumstances of the case, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s marks. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <bcee-snet-lu.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Knud Wallberg/ Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: December 26, 2025

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