The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is the proprietor of several trademark registrations consisting of or containing the word “EUREX”, including:

–  International trademark registration No. 812147 EUREX, registered on 28 July 2003 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;

–  International trademark registration No. 635015 EUREX, registered on 5 December 1994 in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42;

–  European Union trademark registration No. 000744763 EUREX, filed on 13 February 1998 and registered on 16 August 1999 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42;

–  German trademark registration No. 30309064 (file No. 303090642) EUREX, filed on 19 February 2003 and registered on 24 April 2003 in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;

(collectively, the “EUREX trademarks”).

The Complainant, Deutsche Börse AG, is a German company with its registered office in Eschborn, Germany. According to the website extracts submitted with the Complaint, Eurex Exchange is operated by Deutsche Börse AG and offers products and services relating, inter alia, to derivatives trading.

The disputed domain name <eurex.cc> was created on 27 August 2025.

The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying the designation “EUREX” in the header, the wording “Unlocking Potential, Together” and a “Contact Us” form requesting the visitor’s name, e-mail address and message.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Rights

The Complainant has established its rights in the EUREX trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates the word EUREX in its entirety and without any additional element. The “.cc” Top-Level Domain is a standard registration requirement and is disregarded for the purpose of assessing identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s EUREX trademarks and that the first element of the Policy has been satisfied.

No Rights or Legitimate Interests

A complainant is required to establish a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a case is made, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (see Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Based on the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has successfully established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive EUREX trademark and therefore carries a high risk of implied affiliation. This risk is reinforced by the associated website, which uses EUREX as its principal identifier without identifying the Respondent or providing any disclaimer. Such use targets the Complainant and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

The Respondent has not submitted a Response or any evidence rebutting the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.

Bad Faith

Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark (see Section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Bad faith registration 

The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant’s EUREX trademarks were registered many years before the registration of the disputed domain name. The mark is highly distinctive, and the evidence submitted by the Complainant demonstrates that the EUREX mark has been used for many years in connection with derivatives trading and clearing services, as well as related technology.

The Registrar verification identifies Bitreserv as the Respondent’s organisation. The submitted extract from Bitreserv’s website states that it provides IT infrastructure, cybersecurity and fintech solutions. This connection with financial technology makes it even less plausible that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name coincidentally and without knowledge of the Complainant or its EUREX trademark. The fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the EUREX trademark reinforces this conclusion.

Bad faith use

The disputed domain name is used for a website displaying EUREX in its header and inviting visitors to submit their name, email address and a message through a contact form. The website does not identify its operator or explain any relationship with the Complainant.

The exact-match disputed domain name and the presentation of the associated website create the false impression that the website is operated, authorised or endorsed by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to target the Complainant and to mislead Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. Such use constitutes bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the third element of the Policy has been satisfied.

Therefore, for the aforementioned reasons, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <eurex.cc> be transferred to the Complainant.