Thaler.finance

The timeline behind thaler.finance

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 CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA v. Alexander Grey Case No. D2026-0760 1. The Parties The Complainant is CA Indosuez (Switzerland) SA, Switzerland, represented by id est avocats Sarl, Switzerland. The Respondent is Alexander Grey, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <thaler.finance> 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 23, 2026. On February 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 25, 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 February 27, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on March 18, 2026. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 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 and its predecessors have operated a private bank under the mark BANQUE THALER since around 2000. The Complainant owns a Swiss registered trade mark No. 470901 for THALER, registered on March 29, 2000, in class 36. The Complainant operates a website at “www.banquethaler.ch”. The disputed domain name was registered on October 13, 2025. The disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a webpage that was branded “Thaler Finance / USDtx Protocol” and entitled “Join the Waitlist” followed by the text: “Get early access to our closed beta testing of the USDtx Protocol. Connect your wallet and complete registration to secure your spot.” The page included a “Join Waitlist” form with a “Select Wallet” button and an option to provide social media handles and to “Join Our Community” on Discord/Telegram. The footer stated: “Powered by Thaler Finance | Built on Solana.” 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 Complainant’s marks long predate the disputed domain name; - the disputed domain name, including the “.finance” suffix, creates the illusion of an association with the Complainant; - the content of the website indicates that it is illegitimate, including association of the term “thaler” with promotion of a blockchain protocol linked to one or more cryptocurrencies; - the association of the Complainant’s mark with a financial product is likely to falsely suggest that they are related, whereas the Respondent is using the Complainant’s reputation to promote its product; and - the identity between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name is sufficient to create a presumption of bad faith, as are other criteria such as the use of a top-level domain (“TLD”) suffix relating to the Complainant’s field of activity. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Respondent contends that: - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to build a decentralized finance protocol on the Solana blockchain; - Respondent currently hosts a live waitlist where users can connect their Solana wallets and register for early access to its closed beta; - documents show that the Respondent pitched the project at a Superteam Balkan's Buildstation event at around the time of registration of the disputed domain name and thereafter at Solana Blockchains’s Colosseum hackathon; page 3 - Respondent has an active development roadmap, a working product in progress and committed investors; - the Respondent picked the name “Thaler” because it is the historical 16th-century Bohemian silver coin that became the dollar; - in the cryptocurrency/decentralized finance (“DeFi”) industry, referencing historical money is extremely common, e.g., Denarius and Drachma; - the Respondent chose “Thaler” because it is building the financial infrastructure for the next evolution of money, and the name ties back to where modern currency began; - accordingly the naming decision was rooted in monetary history, not in any awareness of the Complainant's trade mark or banking operations, of which the Respondent had no knowledge when it registered the disputed domain name; - the Respondent’s project has nothing to do with Swiss private banking and there is no overlap with the Complainant's business; - Respondent provides a DeFi protocol built on the Solana blockchain, aimed at users operating in a decentralized system, whereas the Complainant serves high-net-worth individuals through traditional wealth management in a fully regulated, centralized banking environment; - these are fundamentally different worlds and nobody searching for Swiss private banking services will stumble onto a Solana DeFi protocol and be confused; - the Respondent has never intended to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant or anyone else; and - the Respondent is, however, not interested in a drawn-out legal fight and is willing to settle for USD 5,000 to cover the disruption and expense of having to rebrand. 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 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 recognised 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. page 4 As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that, for the following reasons, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. First, the Respondent has produced publicly available evidence of various pitches and presentations regarding its Thaler Finance blockchain protocol product, indicating that this is a real project and not merely pretextual. The evidence includes a social media post by a third party organisation dated November 10, 2025, around a month after registration of the disputed domain name, giving details about the Respondent’s product, and including a photograph of the Respondent making a presentation, with a “Thaler Finance”- headed slide in the background. Second, the Respondent has provided a plausible explanation for its selection of “Thaler”, namely as the name of the historical silver coin that eventually became the dollar, and has observed that the names of old currencies are common in the Respondent’s industry, e.g., Denarius and Drachma. Third, the Respondent denies awareness of the Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has provided no evidence of reputation that might counteract this. Fourth, there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever set out to target the Complainant in any way, e.g., misuse of the Complainant’s branding. Fifth, while the Parties both operate in the field of “finance” in the very broadest sense, the Respondent has plausibly pointed out that, in reality, they move in “fundamentally different worlds”. The Complainant appears to serve high-net-worth individuals in a traditional and highly regulated environment, whereas the Respondent’s users function in the decentralized blockchain system. Furthermore, the Complainant has provided no details about its business, let alone any indication of involvement in the Respondent’s industry or any explanation as to why there is a real risk of confusion in this case. Accordingly, in the circumstances outlined above, the Panel considers that the website at the disputed domain name, which enables registration for early beta access to the Respondent’s product, as well as social media engagement, is a precursor to a bona fide offering of services on the part of the Respondent. The Panel rejects the Complainant’s assertions to the effect that the Respondent’s mere association of the term “thaler” with a financial product in general, or a blockchain protocol in particular, is an indicator of illegitimacy or an intent to create a likelihood of confusion. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has not been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In view of the Panel’s conclusion under the second element, it is unnecessary to make a detailed finding under third element. The Panel would simply point out that, for the reasons discussed above, the Complainant would have failed under this element also. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: April 21, 2026

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