ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION BPCE v. Vercel Whois, Vercel Inc. Case No. D2025-3936 1. The Parties The Complainant is BPCE, France, represented by KALLIOPE Law Firm, France. The Respondent is Vercel Whois, Vercel Inc., United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 26, 2025. On September 29, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 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 (anonymous) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 30, 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 amended Complaint on October 1, 2025. 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 October 15, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 4, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 6, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 20, 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 French company acting as the central institution responsible for the two banking networks, Banques Populaires and Caisses d’Epargne. The Complainant one of the largest banking groups in France, serving 36 million customers with 105,000 employees, and also present in more than 40 countries via subsidiaries. The Complainant owns various trademark registrations, including the French trademark BANQUE POPULAIRE (Reg. No. 3113485, registered since July 25, 2001). The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names incorporating its BANQUE POPULAIRE trademark, such as (registered in 1998) and (registered in 2002). The disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2025, and resolves to a website in French reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks and giving the impression of being a login portal to customer accounts of one of the Complainant’s subsidiaries. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent has not submitted any 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 a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Complainant’s trademark is partially reproduced within the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the term “bpopulaire” may be seen as an abbreviation of “Banque Populaire”. Therefore, the dominant feature of the Complainant’s trademark is recognizable in 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. Further, the Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name displays the Complainant’s BANQUE POPULAIRE trademark which shows the Respondent’s intention to target the Complainant’s trademark through the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.15.
page 3 Although the inclusion of other terms, here “secu-” (possibly referring to “security-”), may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the inclusion 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 that 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 that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any 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 evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel also notes that the composition of the disputed domain name when considered together with its use as described above under section 4 may mislead Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name and its corresponding website are connected to the Complainant. The Panel finds that 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. Under the circumstances of this case, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in relation to a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademark and displaying a login portal intended for customer accounts of one of the Complainant’s subsidiaries. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant support a finding that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to its website possibly for its own commercial gain. The Respondent has therefore registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has also established the third element of the Policy.
page 4 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. /Tobias Zuberbühler/ Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: November 25, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy