Webpce.com

The timeline behind webpce.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION BPCE v. Karim Bennaceur Case No. D2026-0571 1. The Parties The Complainant is BPCE, France, represented by KALLIOPE Law Firm, France. The Respondent is Karim Bennaceur, Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <webpce.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2026. On February 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 12, 2026, 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 for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 12, 2026, 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 February 12, 2026. 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 February 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 8, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 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 The Complainant is one of the largest banking groups in France. It has approximately 105,000 employees, 36 million customers and subsidiaries in over 40 countries. The Complainant owns numerous registrations in several jurisdictions for its trademark BPCE, including: TRADEMARK JURISDICTION REGISTRATION NUMBER REGISTRATION DATE INTERNATIONAL CLASS BPCE France 3653852 November 6, 2009 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 45 BPCE European Union 8375842 January 12, 2009 36 BPCE (logo) International Trademark 1033662 December 15, 2009 36 The Complainant holds several domain names containing the trademark BPCE, among them <groupebpce.com> which was registered in 2009 and hosts its main website. Because the Respondent did not file a Response, not much is known about the Respondent. The disputed domain name was registered on January 4, 2026. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per- click site. 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 contends as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BPCE trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and the addition of the prefix “we” is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name, has not been authorized by the Complainant to use this trademark and is not making a bona fide offering of goods and services. The trademark BPCE has been extensively used in France and worldwide to identify the Complainant and its services. The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had knowledge of both the Complainant and its well-known trademark BPCE at the time it registered the page 3 disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by posting a pay-per-click website under the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent attempted to hide his identity and activated a Mail Exchanger record (“MX record”) which allows the Respondent to create an email address using the disputed domain name thereby increasing the risk of fraudulent use of the disputed domain name for phishing attacks, which are of particular concern in the field of banking services. On January 30, 2026, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter, but the Respondent failed to respond. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Although the addition of other terms such as here “we” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that in the present case 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 addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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 for a complainant to prove that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may page 4 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 3.1, 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. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name itself suggests a connection or implied affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent which in fact does not exist. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1 Based on the available record, 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the view of the Panel, noting that the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name and considering that the Complainant’s trademark is well known, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s well- known trademark. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a page offering pay-per-click links for which the Respondent most likely receives some commercial gain. The Panel holds that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website in the sense of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Moreover, the activation of the MX record creates a risk of fraudulent use of the disputed domain name for phishing attacks, which are of particular concern in the field of banking services. In addition, the Panel notes that the Respondent failed to reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter. Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy with regard to the disputed domain name. 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 <webpce.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Mondini/ Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: March 19, 2026

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