Soprasteria-job.com

The timeline behind soprasteria-job.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.

ARBI TRATI O N AND MEDI ATI ON CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sopra Steria Group v. DNS Admin, 75 Global, LLC Case No. D2026-0635 1. The Parties The Complainant is Sopra Steria Group, France, represented by Fidal, France. The Respondent is DNS Admin, 75 Global, LLC, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <soprasteria-job.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2026. On February 16, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 16, 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 (No information provided) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 18, 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 20, 2026. 1 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”). 1 The Complainant removed one domain name from the Complaint upon receipt of the Center’s notice of multiple underlying registrants. page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 23, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 16, 2026. The Center appointed Jon Lang as the sole panelist in this matter on March 19, 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 a French company founded in 1968, specialising in IT consulting, digital services and software development. It is widely recognized in the technology and IT sector for its long-standing presence, scale of operations, and expertise, and enjoys a strong reputation among business partners, clients and Internet users. It is the owner of numerous SOPRA STERIA, SOPRA, and STERIA trademarks (together the “SOPRA STERIA Marks”) in various jurisdictions, including European Union trademark No. 013623889, for SOPRA STERIA (figurative/device) registered on May 15, 2015; International trademark No.1163226, for SOPRA registered on April 8, 2013; and European Union trademark No.003803061 for STERIA, registered on September 26, 2005. The Complainant owns and holds rights in the French corporate name of the Com pl ai nant, SOPRA STERIA GROUP, and owns more than 400 domain names containing SOPRA STERIA, including <sopra-steria.com> (since April 11, 2014) and <soprasteria.fr> (since April 15, 2014). The Complainant also owns domain names which include SOPRA STERIA combined with descriptive terms, some relating to recruitment such as <soprasteriahr.com>, and <soprasteriarecrute.com>. The Complainant operates its official recruitment websites at the subdomains <careers.soprasteria.com>, and <careers.soprasteria.fr>, which are used respectively for its English-language and French-language career and recruitment activities. The disputed domain name <soprasteria-job.com> (hereafter the “Domain Name”), was registered on October 16, 2025. The Domain Name is associated with an active subdomain, <webmail.soprasteria-job.com>, which resolves to an operational webpage displaying a login interface requiring the entry of information, namely, a username and password. 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 Domain name. A summary of the main contentions of the Complainant follows: The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOPRA STERIA Marks. It is composed of the Complainant’s SOPRA STERIA, SOPRA, and STERIA trademarks in whole, combined with the descriptive term “job”, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”. The SOPRA STERIA, SOPRA, and STERIA trademarks are clearly recognizable within the Domain Name. The addition of the term “job” is secondary and descriptive, directly relates to the Complainant’s recruitment activities and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Nor does the presence of a hyphen between “soprasteria” and “job”. The likelihood of confusion is increased by the fact that the Complainant operates its official recruitment websites at the subdomains <careers.soprasteria.com> and <careers.soprasteria.fr> and the domain names <soprasteriarecrute.com> and <soprasteriarecrute.fr> of the Complainant redirect Internet users to these subdomains. The Domain Name follows the same pattern and is highly similar to these domain names. The substitution of the descriptive term “recrute” (which means “recruiting” in English) or “career” in the subdomains, with the equally descriptive term “job”, does not alter the overall impression created by the Domain Name. It in fact reinforces the association with the Complainant’s recruitment activities. page 3 The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to register the Domain Name and the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant exploits its trademarks directly and only authorizes third parties to use them under strict contractual arrangements, such as license or partnership agreements. The Domain Name cannot be considered legitimate or bona fide, as it could mislead Internet users into believing that it is operated by the Complainant, which is not the case. If the Domain Name was to be activated, any website to which it resolved could potentially be used to collect confidential information such as identity and contact details of Internet Users, which could amount to phishing or possible use of such confidential information for fraudulent purposes. Such acts would be extremely damaging not only to the Complainant, but also to Internet users. Although the Domain Name is currently inactive, such passive holding does not confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent, particularly in circumstances where the Respondent is not authorized to use the SOPRA STERIA Marks. The Domain Name’s association with an active subdomain, i.e. <webmail.soprasteria-job.com> as described earlier, cannot be considered legitimate or bona fide use. The Respondent is not authorized to operate any webmail or communication service under the SOPRA STERIA name and the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks in connection with a login interface is inherently misleading and incompatible with any good faith offering of goods or services. Finally, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith. - Given the Complainant’s long-standing use of the SOPRA STERIA Marks beginning well before registration of the Domain Name, and their distinctiveness and reputation, it is not conceivable that the Respondent registered the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant; - The Domain Name reproduces the SOPRA STERIA Marks in whole, without any authorization, and the mere addition of the term “job” does not prevent confusion but reinforces the association with the Complainant’s recruitment activities; - The Domain Name is highly similar to the Complainant’s domain names such as <soprasteriarecrute.com>, as they adopt the same structure consisting of the SOPRA STERIA Marks combined with an additional descriptive term relating to the Complainant’s activities. The Complainant operates its official recruitment and human resources platforms through dedicated subdomains as described earlier; - The Domain Name is highly similar to the Complainant’s domain name <soprasteriarecrute.com>, reproducing the SOPRA STERIA Marks and replacing the descriptive term “recrute” with the equally descriptive term “job”. The presence of a hyphen does not alter the overall impression of the Domain Name. The Domain Name will be seen as another official website used for the Complainant’s recruitment activities and thus may confuse Internet users; - As earlier described, the Domain Name is associated with an active subdomain (<webmail.soprasteria- job.com>) which, in addition to a log-in interface, also provides a “forgot password” option, which redirects users to another interface requesting an email address and password. Such configuration is inherently misleading, and creates a risk that Internet users may disclose sensitive information under the false impression that they are interacting with an official service of the Complainant; - The Domain Name is highly similar to the Complainant’s company name; - The Domain Name is inactive but a “passive holding” or non-use of a domain name can support a finding of bad faith given, for instance, that the SOPRA STERIA Marks are highly distinctive (and not descriptive of the goods and services offered), the Respondent has not submitted a Response and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put; - Given the Complainant operates its official recruitment and human resources platforms through dedicated websites, including subdomains <careers.soprasteria.com> and <careers.soprasteria.fr>, registration of the Domain Name was for the purpose of preventing the Complainant from reflecting its SOPRA STERIA Marks in a corresponding domain name using the word “job”; - Registration of the Domain Name constitutes a clear case of cybersquatting. The only plausible explanation for the Respondent’s conduct is an intention to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks by creating confusion among Internet users. Cybersquatting is evidence of bad faith as the only explanation for it is the desire to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with its actual or potential customers, or to attempt to attract Internet users for the registrant’s own commercial gain; page 4 - The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites; - The Domain Name suggests an official recruitment or employment-related platform of the Complainant. Internet users, particularly job applicants or potential candidates, could reasonably expect that the website associated with the Domain Name is operated by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. The inactive Domain Name is associated with an active subdomain which resolves to an operational webpage displaying a login interface and “forgot password” functionality, as earlier described. This is inherently deceptive with a clear risk that Internet users may disclose sensitive personal data under the false impression that they are interacting with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove: (i) that a respondent has registered a domain name which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which a complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A complainant must prove each of these three elements to succeed. 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 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. Each of the SOPRA STERIA, SOPRA, and STERIA trademarks are reproduced within the Domain Name albeit with the addition of the word “job” appearing after “soprasteria” with a hyphen separating the two elements of the Domain Name. Given that hyphens (along with other minor variations) are regarded as irrelevant for the purposes of the first element of the three part test under the Policy, and that for the purposes of comparison, the gTLD, “.com”, may be ignored, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SOPRA STERIA Marks for the purposes of the Policy. 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 3.1, section 2.1. page 5 A respondent can show it has rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name in various ways even where, as is the case here, it is not licensed by or affiliated with a complainant. For instance, it can show that it has been commonly known by the domain name or that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Here, however, there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is known by the Domain Name. The Domain Name is associated with an active subdomain, <webmail.soprasteria-job.com>, which resolves to an operational webpage displaying a login interface requiring the entry of a username and password. Use, such as it is, cannot therefore be said to be legitimate and noncommercial. As to an absence of an intent to mislead (for commercial gain), the Respondent’s choice of Domain Name suggests the very opposite. In these circumstances, “use” could not be regarded as fair either, particularly given the Domain Name’s association with a webmail address as earlier described. A respondent can also show that it is using a domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. However, it seems clear that the Respondent set out to acquire the Domain Name that would create a misleading impression of association with the Complainant, is used in association with a webmail address. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to accept that such use could amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or any other bona fide use, for the purposes of the Policy. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed as applicable to this case: phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The circumstances of this case suggest that registration of the Domain Name may well have been intended for illegitimate activities and cries out for explanation. Yet the Respondent has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, or indeed any evidence at all . The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case and in all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the second element. 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 faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The scenarios listed in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy include, for instance, a respondent registering a domain name in order to prevent an owner of the trademark or service mark to which it is said to be confusingly similar or identical, from reflecting the mark in question in a corresponding domain name (provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct). A respondent registering a domain name primarily for the purposes of disrupting the business of a competitor is another scenario, as is a respondent intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or of products or services on it. Sometimes, particularly in cases where nothing is done with a domain name, it is not possible for a complainant to demonstrate a precise literal application of one of the paragraph 4(b) scenarios. However, given that such scenarios are non-exclusive and simply illustrative, this matters not as long as there is evidence demonstrating that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, or to abuse a complainant’s trademark. Such behaviour would satisfy the general principle underlying the bad faith requirement of the Policy. Here, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and the SOPRA STERIA Marks at the time of registration of the Domain Name given its formulation. The Domain Name was designed to be, and is, confusingly similar to the SOPRA STERIA Marks. Given the setting up of a webmail subdomain together with the webpage in association with the confusingly similar Domain Name which clearly targets the Complainant, the page 6 Panel considers that the registration and use of the Domain Name constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Moreover, panels have held that use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed as applicable to this case: phishing, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The circumstances here appear to raise the possibility, at least, of future illegitimate use. Having considered the circumstances of this case, it is clear that the Domain Name has the hallmarks of bad faith registration and use. It is inherently misleading and difficult to contemplate any plausible or legitimate explanation for its registration. Conversely, it is easy to contemplate its illegitimate use. The Panel finds that, for the purposes of the Policy, there is evidence of both registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith and that therefore the third element of the Policy has been established. 7. Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <soprasteria-jobs.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Jon Lang/ Jon Lang Sole Panelist Date: April 2, 2026

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