Groupabpce.com

The timeline behind groupabpce.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. Samuel Jacob Case No. D2026-1597 1. The Parties The Complainant is BPCE, France, represented by KALLIOPE Law Firm, France. The Respondent is Samuel Jacob, South Africa. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <groupabpce.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2026. On April 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 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 April 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 12, 2026. The Center appointed Stefan Bojovic as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 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 French joint stock company acting as the central institution responsible for the two banking networks Banques Populaires and Caisses d’Epargne and provides a full range of banking, financing and insurance activities, working through its two major cooperative banking networks and through different subsidiaries. The Complainant employs 105,000 employees and serves a total of 36 million customers. The Complainant is the owner of the BPCE trademark which is protected by trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the following: - European Union trademark registration No. 8375842 for BPCE, registered on January 12, 2010; - French trademark registration No. 3653852 for BPCE, registered on November 6, 2009; and - International Trademark Registration No. 1033662 for BPCE (word/device), registered on December 15, 2009. The Complainant also owns United States of America trademark registration No. 5743541 for GROUPE BPCE (word/device), registered on May 7, 2019 with the disclaimer on the verbal element “GROUPE” (meaning “group” in French). The Complainant and its subsidiaries also own several domain names reflecting the Complainant’s BPCE trademark, such as <bpce.fr>, registered on November 27, 2008, <groupebpce.fr>, registered on February 25, 2009 and <groupebpce.com>, registered on February 25, 2009. The disputed domain name was registered on February 25, 2026, and it resolves to a webpage indicating that the account has been suspended and directing users to contact the support team for further assistance. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on March 25, 2026, which remained unanswered. 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 name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademarks. The Complainant’s BPCE trademark is contained in its entirety within the disputed domain name. The addition of prefix “groupa” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The use of prefix “groupa” is not coincidental, insofar as the domain name <groupebpce.com> is owned by the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant contends that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should not be taken into account to assess the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, as it is a technical requirement which is generally disregarded in the comparison for the purposes of the first element of the Policy. With reference to rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name and the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register and/or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant has not granted any license, nor any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks, including as a domain name. page 3 With reference to the circumstances evidencing bad faith, the Complainant indicates that its trademark registration pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant adds that its trademarks are well known in France and throughout the world, notably by the financial and banking market consumers and that are recognized as such by previous panels. Therefore, the choice of the disputed domain name does not seem to be a mere coincidence, but on the contrary seems to have been done on purpose to generate a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. The fact that the disputed domain name resolves to an inaccessible website does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the passive holding doctrine. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy stipulates that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that 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. Although the Complainant has based its Complaint on both the BPCE and GROUPE BPCE trademarks, the Panel holds that, for the purposes of the analysis under the first element of the Policy, it is sufficient to take into account only the BPCE trademark. The Complainant’s GROUPE BPCE trademark may, however, be relevant to the assessment of the second and third elements of the Policy. The entirety of the Complainant’s BPCE trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “groupa”) may bear on 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 Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. In addition, it is well established that “.com”, as a gTLD, is disregarded in the assessment of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel, therefore, finds that the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel notes that there is no relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant and that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Respondent otherwise obtained an authorization to use the Complainant’s BPCE trademark. There appears to be no element from which the Panel could infer the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel also finds that the composition of the disputed domain name, which contains the Complainant’s BPCE trademark in combination with the term “groupa” – a likely misspelling of the French term “groupe”, meaning “group” – is nearly identical to the Complainant’s own domain name <groupebpce.com> and verbal element of the Complainant’s GROUPE BPCE trademark (regardless of the disclaimer of the term “groupe”), signals the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the dispute domain name. Having in mind the above, 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant and their BPCE trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Namely, the first registration and use of BPCE trademark predate the registration of the disputed domain name by more than a decade, making it unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. page 5 Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name is such that closely corresponds to the domain name <groupebpce.com> (differs from it only in a single letter) owned by the Complainant and verbal element of the Complainant’s GROUPE BPCE trademark (which, although it disclaims the term “groupe”, is used by the Complainant in the course of its business). Due to the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a webpage indicating that the account has been suspended and directing Internet users to contact the support team for further assistance, meaning that the disputed domain has not been actively used by the Respondent. 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. In accordance with section 3.3. of WIPO Overview 3.1, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s taking active steps to conceal its identity, and (iv) the use of false or inaccurate contact details (noted to be in breach of the respondent’s registration agreement. Taking the above factors into consideration, panels assess the overall plausibility of any (claimed) good faith use to which the domain name may be put in light of the composition of the domain name in relation to the relevant mark, such that, the more arbitrary or distinctive a mark the less plausible a claimed non-infringing good faith use is likely to be, and vice versa. It should be emphasized that it is not required that all the above-listed factors be present in order to establish bad faith use of the disputed domain name (see, for example, Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. K Nandalal, BlueHost, WIPO Case No. D2021-3990). Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s BPCE trademark which appears to be exclusively associated with the Complainant, the composition of the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint (and the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter prior to filing of the Complaint) and provide any explanation for the registration and planned use of the disputed domain name, 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. In accordance with the above, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under the Policy. Therefore, 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 <groupabpce.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Stefan Bojovic/ Stefan Bojovic Sole Panelist Date: June 3, 2026

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