Belfius-idcertificatie.org

The timeline behind belfius-idcertificatie.org

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 Belfius Bank SA / Belfius Bank NV v. Oumar Oustadi Case No. D2026-0146 1. The Parties The Complainant is Belfius Bank SA / Belfius Bank NV, Belgium, internally represented. The Respondent is Oumar Oustadi, Morocco. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <belfius-idcertificatie.org> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 9, 2026. On January 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 16, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 January 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 18, 2026. The Center appointed Roger Staub as the sole panelist in this matter on February 23, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a Belgian bank and financial services provider. The Complainant submits that it has more than 5,000 employees and over 650 agencies. The activities of the Complainant are focused on the Belgian territory, but the trademark BELFIUS is also shown outside Belgium as the Complainant sponsors several national sports teams and sports events. The Complainant owns various trademark registrations consisting of the element “Belfius”. The Complainant’s portfolio of BELFIUS trademark registrations includes, inter alia, the following trademark registrations: - European Union Trade Mark No. 10581205 for BELFIUS, registered on May 24, 2012, in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45; and - Benelux Trademark Registration No. 914650 for BELFIUS, registered on May 10, 2012, in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 41, and 45. Further, the Complainant owns registrations for the domain names <belfius.com> and <belfius.be> among other “belfius” formative domain names. The disputed domain name was registered on October 21, 2025. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active page. 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. Notably, the Complainant submits the following: First, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name completely incorporates the Complainant’s trademark BELFIUS. It is likely to make Internet users assume that the website, to which the disputed domain name redirects, offers some kind of services supplied by the Complainant. Second, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in no way associated with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no trademark rights for BELFIUS and does not seem to carry out any activity. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In fact, it is not making any use at all. Third, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As the Complainant’s European Union Trade Mark BELFIUS has been registered since 2012, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark, when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established a substantial presence on the Internet. It has registered more than 200 generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”) worldwide, which incorporate the trademark BELFIUS as part of the respective domain names. The disputed domain name incorporates both the trademark BELFIUS and the Dutch term “idcertificatie”. This is likely to cause confusion for third parties, given that this term is a word often used in the financial sector, which is the main activity sector of the Complainant. The Respondent clearly does not use, nor does it seem to have the intention to use, the disputed domain name for purposes of bona fide offering of goods and services over the page 3 Internet. Moreover, the concealment of the Respondent’s identity is an indication of bad faith. The same applies to the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the cease-and-desist notices sent by the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to the Policy, to qualify for a cancellation or transfer, the Complainant must prove each of the following: First, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark to which the Complainant has rights. Second, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Third, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Since the Respondent did not submit a reply, the Panel may choose to accept the reasonable contentions of the Complainant as true. This Panel will determine whether those facts constitute a violation of the Policy that is sufficient to order the transfer of the disputed domain name (see Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No. D2006-0292). 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here: “idcertificatie”) may bear on the 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 mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 that 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 page 4 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 3.1, 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. The full incorporation of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark into the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. This is even more the case, since the added term “idcertificatie” relates to the Complainant’s business sector and is written in a national language of Belgium, where the Complainant is located. Thus, such composition cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on behalf of the Respondent since it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship on the part of the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. 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. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. Considering the fact that the Complainant’s trademarks predate the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark and a term related to financial services, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant and registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes (i) the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, (ii) the composition of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, 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. Therefore, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 <belfius-idcertificatie.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Roger Staub/ Roger Staub Sole Panelist Date: March 11, 2026

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