ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION TriOptima AB v. kevin allanic Case No. D2025-3800 1. The Parties The Complainant is TriOptima AB, Sweden, represented by Ashurst LLP, United Kingdom. The Respondent is kevin allanic, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 18, 2025. On September 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 18, 2025, 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 (Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 22, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 22, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 September 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 13, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 15, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Theda König Horowicz as the sole panelist in this matter on October 21, 2025. 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 a Swedish Company founded in 2000 belonging to the OSTTRA Group which specializes in a broad range of end-to-end financial investment services to support and solve post-trade investment challenges of the global financial markets and to reduce risk, including in relation to global over-the-counter (OTC) markets across interest rate, foreign exchange (FX), equity and credit asset classes. The Complainant has been using TRIOPTIMA as a trading name and principle brand for 25 years. The OSTTRA Group extensively uses TRIOPTIMA with permission from the Complainant, notably on its official website “www.osttra.com”. The Complainant also offers its customers with access to the TRIOPTIMA services through a login page titled “secure.trioptima.com”. The Complainant has enjoyed considerable press coverage and market recognition via online financial publications contributing to the recognition of the TRIOPTIMA brand in the relevant industry. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations worldwide for TRIOPTIMA including International Registration No. 1552421 designating, among others, the European Union, in classes 9, 36, and 42, registered on August 13, 2020. The disputed domain name was registered on May 25, 2025. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, it resolved to a log in portal page in the French language, asking for the user’s email address and a six-digit code to access its account. 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 it has trademark rights in TRIOPTIMA through several registrations worldwide. The disputed domain name entirely contains the TRIOPTIMA trademark. The addition of a hyphen and the descriptive word “secure” offers no distinctiveness. Additionally, “secure” is commonly used for financial services firms to offer customers a separate login portal which is the case for the Complainant which operates a login page titled “secure.trioptima.com”. Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TRIOPTIMA trademark. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use the trademark; to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent has no interest in the disputed domain name; the Respondent does not hold any unregistered rights in the disputed domain name; and the Respondent has not made any genuine use of the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant asserts that its TRIOPTIMA trademark is well known in the investment space and the fact that the Respondent chose to create a domain name bearing this protected brand indicates that he knew or should have known of the Complainant’s existing rights. The Complainant also uses TRIOPTIMA and “secure” as a log-in page. The registration of the disputed domain name dilutes the Complainant’s reputation in the market and its rights in the TRIOPTIMA trademark. Additionally, the Respondent has concealed his identity by using a privacy service when registering the disputed domain name.
page 3 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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the TRIOPTIMA trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “secure” 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 mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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 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 3.0, 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. Looking at the nature of the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that it is composed of the Complainant’s distinctive trademark with the descriptive term “secure”, which are separated by a hyphen. Panels have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark carry a high risk of implied affiliation. Even where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term (at the second- or top-level), panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner which is the case here noting the term “secure” is closely related to the services provided by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0., section 2.5.1.
page 4 The case file also shows that the disputed domain name is linked to a sole webpage requesting the Internet user to provide an email address along with a code to access its account. No genuine bona fide business is operated by the Respondent under the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore 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. Based on the case file and the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the TRIOPTIMA trading name and trademark has been used for many years in relation to financial services, notably within the European Union where the Respondent is supposedly based. The TRIOPTIMA trademark can be considered as widely known in the above-mentioned field of business and it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the said rights when registering the disputed domain name particularly considering the additional term “secure” is closely related to the services provided by the Complainant. Considering the Complainant’s online presence and activity, a simple Google search should have drawn the Respondent’s attention over the fact that TRIOPTIMA is a protected brand. 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 3.0, section 3.2.1. As already mentioned above, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage requesting the Internet user to provide an email address along with a code to access its account, which demonstrates the Respondent’s potential intention to collect personal data that could be used for phishing purposes. In this case, the Panel also notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and the composition of the disputed domain name which entirely reproduces the TRIOPTIMA trademark with the descriptive word “secure” which is known to be used by financial institutions in relation to log in portals for their clients. In fact, the Complainant offers its customers with access to the TRIOPTIMA services through a login page titled “secure.trioptima.com”. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. The use of a privacy service for the registration of the domain name, the incomplete or false postal address used for the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, and the silence of the Respondent in these proceedings are additional indications of bad faith. 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Theda König Horowicz/ Theda König Horowicz Sole Panelist Date: November 7, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy