Africanbank.cyou

The timeline behind africanbank.cyou

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 African Bank Limited v. Tyler Wills Case No. D2026-3103 1. The Parties The Complainant is African Bank Limited, South Africa, represented by Adams & Adams Attorneys, South Africa. The Respondent is Tyler Wills, South Africa. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <africanbank.cyou> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 15, 2026. On July 15, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 16, 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 July 21, 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 July 24, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 13, 2026. On July 24, 2026, the Respondent sent a communication to the Center, consenting to the transfer of the disputed domain name. On August 5, 2026, the Complaint was suspended while the Parties attempted a settlement. The Parties were unable to settle the matter, and the Complaint was reinstated on September 7, page 2 2026, with a new Respondent response date of September 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center commenced the panel appointment process on September 17, 2026. On September 17, 2026, the Respondent communicated through the Registrar’s contact system that he had responded regarding the matter and had attempted, unsuccessfully, to transfer the disputed domain name. The Center appointed Halvor Manshaus as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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, African Bank Limited, is a South African public company duly registered with registration number 2014/176899/07. The Complainant is a South African-based retail bank offering financial services and products under its AFRICAN BANK trademark, through 389 “brick and mortar” branches spread across South Africa, as well as digitally through its online banking platform and mobile application. AFRICAN BANK was founded in 1975, after its founders, Dr Sam Motsuenyane and Dr Richard Maponya, and other black businessmen raised the R1 million required at the time to open the bank. The Complainant relies on the following registered trademarks for AFRICAN BANK: • South Africa, Registration No. 2012/28234, AFRICAN BANK, class 25, registered May 18, 2015; • Botswana, Registration No. BW/M/2008/00550, AFRICAN BANK, class 36, dated September 3, 2008; • Lesotho, Registration No. LS/M/2008/00276, AFRICAN BANK, class 36, dated August 28, 2008. The Complainant also holds additional South African trademark registrations for AFRICAN BANK covering classes 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42 (all registered on May 18, 2015), as well as a Zimbabwean registration (no. ZW/T/2008/999, class 36, registered on July 14, 2011). The Complainant's registered rights in the AFRICAN BANK mark date back to 2008, predating the registration of the disputed domain name by 18 years. The Complainant's goods and services are advertised at its website at “https://www.africanbank.co.za”, which displays the AFRICAN BANK trademark. The domain name for that website, <africanbank.co.za>, has been registered since November 26, 1996, predating the disputed domain name by 29 years. The Complainant also owns numerous other AFRICAN BANK-incorporating domain names, including <african- bank.com>, <africanbank.com>, <african-bank.co.za>, <africanbankcreditcard.co.za>, <africanbank.org.za>, <africanbank.online>, and <africanbanklimited.com>. The Complainant regularly advertises in print media, on outdoor billboards, and through radio sponsorships, and maintains an active social media presence, using the profile name “Africanbank” on Facebook (421,000 followers), the handle @AfricanBank on X/Twitter (more than 78,000 followers), and the profile name “africanbank” on Instagram (more than 23,000 followers). The disputed domain name <africanbank.cyou> was registered on June 14, 2026. The Complainant became aware of the disputed domain name around the time of its registration, in June 2026, when its attorneys of record alerted the Complainant to the registration. A WhoIs search conducted on or about June 17, 2026 (three days after registration) recorded the disputed domain name's status as “server transfer prohibited” and “client transfer prohibited.“ At that stage, the disputed domain name resolved to a page displaying a “Deceptive Website Warning.“ Upon proceeding past that warning, the disputed domain name resolved to a dashboard login page bearing the Complainant's AFRICAN BANK trademarks, which the Complainant contends was virtually identical to its own mobile banking login interface, and which requested a username, PIN, and password from visitors. The Complainant's representatives sent correspondence to the Registrar, Spaceship, Inc., and to Namecheap, Inc. (in its capacity as hosting provider), on June 17, 2026 and again on June 26, 2026, page 3 addressing the registration and requesting that access to the infringing website content be disabled. The Complainant submits that it appears the domain's status changes to “server hold,“ “server transfer prohibited,“ “client update prohibited,“ and “client transfer prohibited” occurred following this correspondence. By the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name no longer resolved to an active website. Following Registrar verification, the underlying registrant was disclosed as Tyler Wills, South Africa. The Complainant states it has no relationship with the Respondent and did not authorize the Respondent's use of the AFRICAN BANK mark. On July 24, 2026, the Respondent, corresponding under the name “Adole Lewis” from the disclosed registrant email address, informed the Center that he did not wish to contest the proceeding, and consented to transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, waiving any objection to such transfer. The Respondent separately indicated, in a communication forwarded via the Registrar's contact system on September 17, 2026, that he had already responded regarding the matter and had attempted, unsuccessfully, to transfer the disputed domain name into the Registrar's own account. No formal Response was filed by the due date of September 15, 2026, and the Center proceeded to Panel Appointment. 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 AFRICAN BANK trademark, as it wholly incorporates the mark. The Complainant argues that the only distinguishing elements between the disputed domain name and its trademark are the absence of a space between the two words, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.cyou,“ neither of which is capable of avoiding a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant submits that wholesale incorporation of a registered trademark within a domain name is sufficient to establish confusing similarity. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, asserting that it never authorized any third party, including the Respondent, to use the AFRICAN BANK mark, that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent of any kind, and that the Respondent has never been commonly known by the AFRICAN BANK name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It argues that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website mimicking the Complainant's official mobile application login interface and soliciting usernames, PINs, and passwords, evidencing an intention to deceive the Complainant's customers and to facilitate fraud and phishing. The Complainant submits that the registration of a domain name wholly incorporating its well-known AFRICAN BANK mark, coupled with use of that domain to mimic its official platform, constitutes cybersquatting and an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement. The Complainant contends that, given the Respondent's address is in South Africa where the Complainant is well known, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's rights at the time of registration. B. Respondent On 24 July 2026, the Respondent, corresponding under the name “Adole Lewis” from the Registrar disclosed registrant email address, informed the Center that he did not wish to contest the proceeding, and consented to transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, waiving any objection to such transfer. The Respondent separately indicated, in a communication forwarded via the Registrar's contact system on 17 page 4 September 2026, that he had already responded regarding the matter and had attempted, unsuccessfully, to transfer the disputed domain name into the Registrar's own account. No formal Response was filed by the due date of September 15, 2026, and the Center proceeded to Panel Appointment. 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 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. The entirety of the mark is reproduced 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. The Panel finds the 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. Although the addition of other terms here, the absence of a space between “African” and “Bank” and the generic Top-Level Domain “cyou,“ may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such terms 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 1.8. 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 demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed phishing/identity theft, copycat sites, passing off (i.e., establishing a website that reproduces the Complainant's mark and impersonates its official mobile banking login interface to solicit usernames, PINs, and passwords from the page 5 Complainant's customers) or other types of fraud 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, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which wholly incorporates the Complainant's distinctive AFRICAN BANK mark, some 18 years after the Complainant's earliest registered trademark rights were established, and used it to operate a website that reproduced the Complainant's AFRICAN BANK mark and mimicked the Complainant's own mobile banking login interface, soliciting usernames, PINs, and passwords from visitors. The Panel finds this constitutes an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, wi thin the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed phishing/identity theft, copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud 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 <africanbank.cyou> be transferred to the Complainant. /Halvor Manshaus/ Halvor Manshaus Sole Panelist Date: October 8, 2026

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