ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Société Générale v. Sean Knowles, OPSAP Case No. DAI2025-0043 1. The Parties The Complainant is Société Générale, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Sean Knowles, OPSAP, United Kingdom. 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 5, 2025. On September 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 8, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 8, 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 September 9, 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 September 12, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 6, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on October 10, 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 According to the Complainant’s documented allegations, which remain uncontested, it has been one of Europe's leading financial services groups and a major player in the economy for over 150 years, supports 26 million clients every day, with a staff of 119 000 persons in 62 countries. The Complaint is based on the following trademark registrations for the word SOCGEN, namely: - International trademark no. 772893 registered on December 5, 2001, for services in classes 38 and protection granted amongst others for the United Kingdom, where the Respondent is located; - the European Union trademark SOCGEN no. 000476671 registered on December 17, 1998, for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 36. These marks have duly been renewed and are in force. The evidence before the Panel further shows that the Complainant uses the above trademarks SOCGEN for the domain name which is used for all official Complainant’s email communications to the public. As evidenced by the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on February 28, 2022. The website associated with the disputed domain name is currently inactive. 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, (1) the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks, as the trademark is identically contained in the disputed domain name without any addition or deletion and the “.ai” Top Level Domain (“TLD”) is not to be taken into account; (2) the Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WhoIs information was not similar to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Furthermore, neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name; (3) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark SOCGEN which has been extensively used for all the Complainant’s email communications to the public. The Respondent could not ignore the Complainant and has therefore registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks SOCGEN. Finally, the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.
page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is the Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. 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 and composes its entire second level domain without any modifications. The applicable TLD in a domain name (here: “ai”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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.
page 4 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 disputed domain is inactive and can, therefore, not constitute bona fide offering of goods or services in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel does not dispose of any elements or evidence indicating any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, there are no elements in the available record that could lead the Panel to the conclusion that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy or that it has acquired trademark rights. In particular, the Complainant has not authorized or licensed the Respondent to use any of its trademarks in any way and the information on the Respondent as resulting from the WhoIs and as confirmed by the concerned Registrar was not similar to the disputed domain name. Finally, the Panel shares the view of previous UDRP panels who have found that domain names identical to a complainant’s trademark – as in the present case – carry a high risk of implied affiliation and therefore falsely suggest an affiliation with the trademark owner, which is not “fair use” pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. 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. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is inactive. Prior UDRP panels have found that the apparent lack of active use (e.g., a blank or “coming soon” page) of the domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see, e.g. Caffè Borbone S.r.l. v. Manlidy, GNN, WIPO Case No. D2023-1095). The Panel must therefore examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark; (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use; (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement); and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). In the case at hand, the Panel considers the following circumstances surrounding the registration as suggesting that the Respondent was aware that it 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:
page 5 (i) the registration of the trademark which predates the disputed domain name’s registration by many years, and is extensively used for the Complainant’s email communication with its 26 million clients; (ii) the composition of the disputed domain name, identically incorporating the Complainant’s trademark from which the Panel infers that it is more likely than not that by registering the disputed domain name the Respondent intended to take unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the dispute domain name; and (iii) the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint and bring forward any plausible arguments for a plausible legitimate active use that the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name. 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. /Tobias Malte Müller/ Tobias Malte Müller Sole Panelist Date: October 24, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy