ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CA Consumer Finance, Société Anonyme v. nicolas legrand Case No. D2025-4317 1. The Parties The Complainant is CA Consumer Finance, Société Anonyme, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is nicolas legrand, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name 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 October 21, 2025. On October 22, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 22, 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 (PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 23, 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 23, 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 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 21, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on November 26, 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 CA Consumer France, subsidiary of a large French banking group Crédit Agricole, and is dedicated to consumer credit services, offered under the trademark SOFINCO. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for SOFINCO: - French Reg. No. 1519214 of March 22, 1988; - French Reg. No. 4388332 of September 13, 2017; - European Union (“EU”) Reg. No. 017874353 of August 9, 2018; - EU Reg. No. 004519732 of July 3, 2007; and - International Reg. No. 730493 of November 24, 1999. The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names which incorporate its SOFINCO trademark. The Complainant’s operates its website at “www.sofinco.fr”. The disputed domain name was registered on May 19, 2025, and redirects to the Complainant’s official website. The Complainant served a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, through the intermediary of the Privacy Service identified as recorded owner of the disputed domain name, on August 27, 2025, reminded on September 3 and September 10, 2025, but never obtained any response. 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 trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being 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));
page 3 (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(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 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 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, “-ca”) 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. (i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. 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, 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.
page 4 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 Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not make any bona fide use – neither commercial nor noncommercial – of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has filed evidence reflecting the that its trademark SOFINCO has been widely used for years, particularly in France. When the identity of the Respondent was disclosed by the Registrar, it was found that the Respondent is located in France. Due to the longstanding use of the Complainant’s mark in France, the Respondent could not reasonably be unaware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel observes besides that the disputed domain name is formed with the Complainant trademark to which are added the letters “ca”, which form part of the Complainant’s corporate name, and that it is redirected to the Complainant’s official web site. For this Panel, it is a clear indication that the Respondent necessarily had the Complainant’s trademarks in mind when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel infers from the above that the Respondent acted in bad faith when it registered the disputed domain name. It is further noted by the Panel that the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website. The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the Complainant having distinctive trademark and no response to the Complaint having been filed. UDRP panels may draw inferences about whether a domain name is used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration. The Panel finds that the redirection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website constitutes bad faith use under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Besides, given that the Complainant operates in financial services, the Panel suspects that the registration of the disputed domain name, which has been found confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark, is very likely intended to be used for phishing purposes or similar fraudulent activities. 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. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: December 3, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy