Cuaenergie.com

The timeline behind cuaenergie.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 CUA Energie Bois v. Frederic Pagnon Case No. D2026-2798 1. The Parties The Complainant is CUA Energie Bois, France, represented by CLEACH AVOCATS, France. The Respondent is Frederic Pagnon, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <cuaenergie.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 June 26, 2026. On June 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 29, 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 (HOSTINGER) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 30, 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 amended Complaints on July 1 and 3, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 July 3, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 23, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 24, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on July 29, 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 CUA ENERGIE BOIS is a French company dedicated to the operation and distribution of wood-related energy and heat for a French urban community. The Complainant owns rights in the name CUA ENERGIE BOIS through its corporate name, under which it has traded since 2025, (registered in the National Register of Companies on October 17, 2025, and trading since October 21, 2025). The Complainant’s primary web site operates under the domain name <cua- energie-bois.idex.fr>. Finally, the Complainant has applied for the French figurative trademark CUA ÉNERGIE BOIS serial no. 5260533, applied for on May 21, 2026. That trademark is pending registration. The disputed domain name <cuaenergie.com> was registered on January 8, 2026. It resolves to a web site dedicated to wood-related energy, where the Complainant’s CUA ENERGIE BOIS name is reproduced, and where its corporate name, contact details and incorporation number are displayed. Mail exchange (“MX”) servers have been set up in relation to the disputed domain name. The cease-and-desist letter that the Complainant served to the Respondent on June 23, 2026, has 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 earlier rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and page 3 (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph (a)(iii)). 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 relies upon its corporate name, registered on October 17, 2025, as well as a pending French Trademark for CUA ÉNERGIE BOIS, applied for on May 21, 2026. It also shows actual use of the corporate name on its official website hosted under the domain name <cua-energie-bois.idex.fr>, which is also composed of its corporate name. The Complainant has submitted evidence that it has been using the sign CUA ENERGIE BOIS in the energy sector since October 2025 (communication materials and invoices). Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established unregistered rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. The Panel finds that CUA ENERGIE BOIS is recognizable within the disputed domain name <cuaenergie.com>. The removal of the descriptive term “bois” (“wood” in English) from the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s unregistered rights. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s 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 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. 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 particularly by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not make any bona fide or legitimate non-commercial fair use of the disputed domain name. In addition, the disputed domain name has been used to impersonate the Complainant. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here impersonation or passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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 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, the Panel notes that the Complainant has substantiated that: - The disputed domain name reproduces the distinctive elements of its corporate name. - It is directed to a web site dedicated to wood-related energy products, namely a business that directly competes with its own. - The Respondent uses on its web pages the Complainant’s corporate name in its entirety, and impersonates the Complainant by using its corporate name, contact details and incorporation number. - The Respondent has not responded to the cease-and-desist letter it was served by the Complainant. Besides, the evidence supplied in support of the Complainant’s contentions shows that the Respondent has set up MX servers, thus revealing an intention to use the same as an email address, for the purpose of further impersonating the Complainant and/or for phishing purposes. In this context, it can be inferred therefore that the Respondent has sought to divert Internet traffic intended for the Complainant to its impersonating website, and 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 trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed impersonation or 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 <cuaenergie.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: August 4, 2026

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