Hepner-group.com

The timeline behind hepner-group.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 Heppner Societe de Transports v. Damian Perew Case No. D2026-0693 1. The Parties The Complainant is Heppner Societe de Transports, France, represented by NOVAGRAAF FRANCE, France. The Respondent is Damian Perew, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <hepner-group.com> 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 February 18, 2026. On February 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 20, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 20, 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. 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 March 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Benjamin Fontaine as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 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 According to undisputed elements, the Complainant, Heppner Societe de Transports, is an independent French family company, specializing in transport and logistics solutions since 1925. The Complainant counts more than 1000 employees spread across around 100 agencies in France and internationally. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trade marks, among which: French trade mark registration No. 1609348 of August 14, 1990 duly renewed since then; International trade mark registration No. 565363 of January 2, 1991, duly renewed since then. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <heppner-group.com> registered on February 27, 2019. This domain name is notably used for the e-mail addresses used by the Complainant. The disputed domain name , <hepner-group.com>, was registered on February 4, 2026. At the time of the present decision, it is not used in relation to an active website. However, the Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has sent to third parties emails from an address generated with the disputed domain name, impersonating the Complainant. 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 that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to its earlier trade mark GROUPE HEPPNER that it almost identically reproduces. Then, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark, in a domain name, or otherwise. Moreover, the Respondent has no rights on the denomination “hepner”. Besides, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially because there is no website linked to the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading. By incorporating the Complainant’s trade mark with only minor variations, it creates a likelihood of confusion among Internet users. This does not constitute fair use, but an attempt to impersonate the Complainant. page 3 Third, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and of its trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name because of the Complainant’s widespread and long-standing use of its trade marks and because the disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s own domain name. Lastly, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was used to send emails impersonating it in order to deceive their recipients. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the GROUPE HEPPNER mark is recognizable 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. Indeed, both elements of the Complainant’s trade mark are imitated within the disputed domain name. Besides, the Panel finds that the inversion of the terms “group” and “hepner”, combined with the removal of the second “p” of the term “heppner” and of the final “e” in “group” 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 1.9. 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 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 page 4 demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent in a fraudulent phishing scheme. Indeed, the Complainant has evidenced that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to send emails impersonating the Complainant. Not only did the Respondent purport to offer transport services to the recipients of these emails, but the emails signature also replicated the look and feel of the Complainant’s own. Additionally, the postal address displayed in this signature box corresponds to one of the Complainant’s secondary establishments. In this respect, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed phishing/identity theft, impersonation or passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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, in view of the composition of the disputed domain name - which imitates the Complainant’s inherently distinctive trade mark - and of its use to impersonate the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent was necessarily aware of the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Besides, the disputed domain name has been used to fraudulently impersonate the Complainant to deceive the recipients of the emails sent via said disputed domain name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed phishing/identity theft and impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name 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 name <hepner-group.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Benjamin Fontaine/ Benjamin Fontaine Sole Panelist Date: April 13, 2026

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