Efg-finance.org, Efg-internationa.com, Efg-internationa.org

The timeline behind efg-finance.org

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 EFG Bank European Financial Group SA v. Qiao Qiao, adasdad, and 名 王 Case No. D2025-4968 1. The Parties The Complainant is EFG Bank European Financial Group SA, Switzerland, represented by CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondents are Qiao Qiao, adasdad, United States of America, and 名 王, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <efg-finance.org> and <efg-internationa.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc. The disputed domain name <efg-internationa.org> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (collectively, the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 28, 2025. On November 28, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 1 and December 2, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, and REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 4, 2025, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 8, 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 9, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 29, 2025. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on January 8, 2026. The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 20, 2026. 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 Located in Geneva, the Complainant as part of EFG International AG carries on business in the field of banking and financial services in more than 20 countries around the world. The Complainant has 3000 employees and manages CHF 162 billion in client assets. For more than 20 years, the Complainant has been using the EFG trademark and the EFG Bank trade name. The Complainant is the owner of registrations for the EFG trademark in many jurisdictions around the world, including China and the United States of America. The Complainant’s evidence includes examples of numerous registrations, dating back to July 1997, when the mark was first registered in Europe. The Complainant has also widely used and registered the EFG logo, which includes a distinctive red-coloured section of the letter “F”. Examples of the Complainant’s registered marks in the European Union are as follows: Trademark Class Reg. No Reg. Date EFG 36 582742 January 25, 1999 EFG (figurative) 36 016276677 May 16, 2017 The Complainant also owns domain names which include its EFG mark, such as <efginternational.com>. The Respondents appear to be located in China and the United States of America. The disputed domain names were registered as follows: <efg-internationa.com> September 20, 2025, in the name of 名 王; <efg-finance.org> June 10, 2025, in the name of 名 王; and <efg-internationa.org> August 11 , 2025, in the name of Qiao Qiao, adasdad. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names resolved to nearly identical websites headed “EFG BANK AG” (which is the name of a company affiliated to the Complainant) which prominently featured the Complainant’s figurative trademark and offered financial services. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant contends that its EFG trademark is well known internationally, with registrations around the world, including China and the United States of America where the Respondents may reside. The Respondents’ websites, which are associated with the disputed domain names, all display the EFG page 3 Bank name and distinctive logo along with content copied from the Complainant’s website. In the absence of any response from the Respondents, the Complainant urges the Panel to find deliberate targeting of its well-known mark for improper purposes. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that the three websites to which the disputed domain names resolve are nearly identical in terms of content, fonts, imagery, text and layout, including the use of the Complainant’s EFG logo and EFG Bank AG name. This fact is an indicator of common control, which has not been denied or refuted by the Respondents. In addition, the Panel acknowledges that the disputed domain names were registered over a short period of time between June and September 2025. The composition of the three disputed domain names is also highly similar, notably between <efg-internationa.com> and <efg-internationa.org> where the same misspelling is adopted. Finally, the Panel notes the use of obviously fake registrant information for each of the disputed domain names (which prevented the courier from delivering the Center’s written communications), consistent with a shared intention to conceal true identity. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 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. page 4 The Panel finds the EFG 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, “finance” and “internationa”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such 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 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 names. In particular, the Complainant has presented evidence of the long-standing international reputation it has garnered for the EFG brand and has put forward cogent evidence and submissions that the Respondent has never been licensed or otherwise authorized to register the disputed domain names or use the mark. The Respondent appears to be using its confusingly similar disputed domain names (two of which are nearly identical to the Complainant’s own domain name <efginternational.com>) in association with websites offering similar financial services to those provided by the Complainant using the Complainant’s EFG mark and name, in a manner consistent with deliberate targeting. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. 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 is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names without intent for commercial gain. Instead, the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to deceive third parties, by hosting impersonating websites including use of EFG trademarks, logos and branding, all in association with financial services virtually identical to those offered by the Complainant. Detailed evidence has been provided which documents the misleading nature of the page 5 Respondent’s conduct targeting the Complainant, including the repeated use of the Complainant’s uniquely stylized logo, and its affiliated company name EFG Bank AG, as well as outright copying of text from the Complainant’s site describing the purported services on offer. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <efg-finance.org>, <efg-internationa.com>, and <efg-internationa.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Christopher J. Pibus/ Christopher J. Pibus Sole Panelist Date: February 3, 2026

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