| Case number | CAC-UDRP-108772 |
|---|---|
| Time of filing | 2026-06-23 14:44:17 |
| Domain names | bforb-prive.com |
Case administrator
| Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
|---|
Complainant
| Organization | BFORBANK |
|---|
Complainant representative
| Organization | NAMESHIELD S.A.S. |
|---|
Respondent
| Organization | DEV MULTI |
|---|
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 owns the EU trademark reg. no. 8335598 since June 2nd, 2009 for BFORBANK.
I - The Complainant.
BFORBANK is an online bank launched in October 2009 by the Crédit Agricole Regional Banks. BFORBANK offers daily banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services.
II - The disputed domain name
<bforb-prive.com>was registered on June 15, 2026 and is not active.
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.
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademark BFORBANK.
The disputed domain name is <bforb-prive>.
The Panel finds that the trademark “BFORBANK” is fully recognizable in the disputed domain name and that the omission of the letters "ANK" and the addition of the generic term "PRIVE" have no significant impact in the confusing similarity assessment.
According to a consolidated case law in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in it, the confusing similarity threshold is met.
In the Panel's view the case could be considered a combination between typosquatting and combination between a trademark and a generic / descriptive term.
The addition of “.com” is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.
As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.
2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name also in the view of the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the complaint.
On the basis of the information submitted by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent, the Panel agrees that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to use and register the disputed domain name.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods / services nor a legitimate / fair use of a domain name. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name links to a blank page.
For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.
3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademark BFORBANK;
(ii) the disputed domain name is a clear and obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark (i.e. typo squatting). Previous panels found that typo squatting discloses an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting to find a website related to the Complainant.
As regards use in bad faith, the disputed domain name is not actively used. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark, it is improbable that <bforb-prive.com> could be used in a way that would not infringe the Complainant's rights on the BFORBANK trademarks.
All above considered the Panel finds the evidence submitted as sufficient to prove use and registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.
- bforb-prive.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
| Name | Andrea Mascetti |
|---|