Banxogestion.com

The timeline behind banxogestion.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION BPCE v. nicolas dubois Case No. D2025-5324 1. The Parties The Complainant is BPCE, France, represented by KALLIOPE Law Firm, France. The Respondent is nicolas dubois, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <banxogestion.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 19, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld f or Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 22, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on December 23, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Unif orm 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 f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was January 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on January 21, 2026. The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on January 26, 2026. 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 The Complainant, a French corporation, ranks amongst the top banking, insurance and f inancial services groups in France, and is the result of the amalgamation of Banque Populaire and Caisse d’Epargne, two large cooperative banking networks. Its 105,000 employees serve 36 million clients, out of whom 9 million are cooperative shareholders. The Complainant, through its subsidiaries, is present in over 40 countries worldwide. The Complainant owns the French trademark registration No. 4231071 for BANXO, registered on December 3, 2015 (hereinaf ter ref erred to as the “Mark”). The Mark is also the brand used by the Complainant’s Caisse d’Epargne banking network f o r its mobile banking application. The Complainant provided evidence that a Mail Exchange (“MX”) server has been conf igured under the disputed domain name and that f raudulent emails were sent to customers of the Complainant’s Caisse d’Epargne banking network. The disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2025, and did not resolve to any active website at the time the Complaint was filed. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name similarly does not resolve to any accessible website. 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 reproduces the Mark, in which it has rights, and is confusingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name contains the Mark and that the addition of the word “g es ti on” after the Mark does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity, as the Mark remains recognizable in the disputed domain name. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and never had any af f iliation with the Complainant (which never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark in any manner). Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent had knowledge of the Mark and registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is also using it in bad faith. The disputed domain name was used f or sending fraudulent emails to clients of the Complainant’s Caisse d’Epargne banking network, which included the names of actual employees of the Complainant’s Caisse d’Epargne banking network and, on one occasion, its logo. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transf erred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Aspects – Failure to Respond As af orementioned, no Response was received f rom the Respondent. Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a default by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint. The Panel does not find any exceptional circumstance in this case which would cause the Panel to proceed dif f erently. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria f or a transf er of the disputed domain name have been met, even in the event of a def ault. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inf erences f rom the Respondent’s def ault as it considers appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, the Panel finds that, as a result of the def ault, the Respondent has f ailed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, by defaulting and failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or f air use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad f aith. 6.2. Requirements of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds that the Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, despite the Mark being followed by the term “gestion”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of another element here, such as the term “gestion” (meaning “management” in French), may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such element does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Regarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name, it is well established that a gTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name f or the purpose of determining identity or conf usingly similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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. While 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 often impossible 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 f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent f ails 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 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 f acie 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegitimate activity (here claimed phishing and impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 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 Complainant provided evidence showing that the disputed domain name was used to send f raudulent emails to induce clients of the Complainant’s Caisse d’Epargne banking network to invest in scam of f ers, using the names of actual employees of the Caisse d’Epargne banking network. Prior panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here claimed phishing and impersonation/passing of f ) constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. In addition, some UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have a duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name, which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others, and which would infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of a third party. See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, WIPO Case No . D2000-1397; Nuplex Industries Limited v. Nuplex, WIPO Case No. D2007-0078; Mobile Communication Service Inc. v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No . D2005-1304; BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao, WIPO Case No . D2007-1325; Media General Communications, Inc. v. Rarenames, WebReg, WIPO Case No . D2006-0964; and mVisible Technologies, Inc. v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No . D2007-1141. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <banxogestion.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Louis-Bernard Buchman/ Louis-Bernard Buchman Sole Panelist Date: January 29, 2026

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