Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-109040

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <paysofax.com> (the "disputed domain name").

The Complainant, SOFAX BANQUE, relies upon unregistered trade mark or service mark rights in the designation SOFAX BANQUE.

The Complainant is a French banking institution which has operated under the corporate name SOFAX BANQUE since 14 April 1995. It is identified under that name in the records of the French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority (Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution, "ACPR") and in independent banking-sector information.

The Complainant filed French trade mark application no. 5304343 for SOFAX BANQUE on 2 October 2026. The application was published on 23 October 2026 and had not proceeded to registration according to the INPI extract submitted. 

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations

The Complainant is a French banking institution whose corporate origins date to 1963. It forms part of the TotalEnergies Group and provides banking services principally to companies within that Group, including loans and guarantees.

The Complainant states that it is authorised to conduct banking and investment related activities in France.

B. Respondent's Position

The Respondent did not file a Response or submit observations pursuant to Procedural Order No. 1 (the "PO1").

C. Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name <paysofax.com> was registered on 19 April 2026 through OwnRegistrar, Inc.

The Complaint identifies the Respondent as Frederic.

The evidence submitted with the Complaint, including an archived capture dated 29 May 2026, shows that the disputed domain name was used for a French-language website prominently displaying SOFAX BANQUE and presenting itself as an online banking service. The website invited visitors to open bank accounts, access online banking facilities and obtain financial services.

An ABE Infoservice regulatory blacklist entry dated 4 June 2026 identifies the disputed domain name under categories including credit, savings accounts, payments, insurance and professional identity theft.

D. Procedural History

Following review of the record, the Panel issued PO1 on 3 November 2026, inviting the Complainant to make further submissions, supported by evidence, concerning its asserted unregistered trade mark or service mark rights in SOFAX BANQUE.

The Complainant submitted its response on 5 November 2026, together with two additional annexes concerning its banking-sector recognition and French trade mark application.

The Respondent was afforded until 11 November 2026 to comment on those submissions. No observations were received from the Respondent within the prescribed period.

A. Complainant

A.1 Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant submits that it owns longstanding unregistered trade mark or service mark rights in SOFAX BANQUE arising from its use of that designation in connection with banking activities.

The Complainant contends that SOFAX BANQUE has acquired distinctiveness through its longstanding commercial operations, its status as a regulated banking institution and its identification in independent banking-sector sources. The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name incorporates SOFAX, the distinctive element of SOFAX BANQUE, preceded by the term "pay", which is directly associated with financial services. The omission of "BANQUE" and the addition of "pay" do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

In its response to PO1, the Complainant adduces further evidence of financial activity and independent identification of SOFAX BANQUE as a banking institution. It also invokes French law and previous UDRP decisions concerning unregistered trade mark rights arising from corporate names, together with the Respondent's alleged deliberate targeting of its identity.

A.2 No rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no relationship with it and has never been authorised to use the SOFAX BANQUE name or register the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no corresponding trade mark rights and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. It points to the use of the disputed domain name for a website presenting itself as SOFAX BANQUE and offering banking services. The Complainant submits that the Respondent sought to impersonate it and mislead Internet users, and that such conduct cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

A.3 Registered and used in bad faith

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of, and an intention to target, SOFAX BANQUE. It relies on the incorporation of SOFAX into the disputed domain name, the addition of the financial term "pay" and the use of the corresponding website to present banking services under the SOFAX BANQUE identity. The Complainant further refers to inconsistencies in the Respondent's disclosed registration details and to the inclusion of the disputed domain name on the ABE Infoservice regulatory blacklist.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent deliberately sought to create confusion concerning the origin and authorisation of the website for commercial gain.

A.4 Relief sought

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent has not participated in the proceeding. The Respondent's default does not relieve the Complainant of its burden of establishing each element required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.

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

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

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

1. Procedural Order No. 1

Having reviewed the Complaint and supporting evidence, the Panel considered it appropriate to invite further submissions concerning the Complainant's asserted unregistered trade mark or service mark rights in SOFAX BANQUE under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy.

Accordingly, on 3 November 2026, the Panel issued PO1 pursuant to Rules 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules. The Complainant was afforded until 6 November 2026 to submit further observations and supporting evidence, and the Respondent was afforded until 11 November 2026 to comment.

The Complainant submitted its response on 5 November 2026, accompanied by an independent banking-sector profile and an extract from the French trade mark register. No observations were received from the Respondent by the deadline of 11 November 2026.

The Panel has considered the additional submissions and evidence in accordance with the UDRP Policy and the UDRP Rules.

2. Miscellaneous

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP Policy, the UDRP Rules and the CAC Supplemental Rules have been met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. 

A. Applicable Legal Framework

Pursuant to Rule 15 of the UDRP Rules, the Panel decides on the basis of the statements and evidence submitted, in accordance with the UDRP Policy, the UDRP Rules and any applicable principles of law that it deems applicable.

Under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy, the Complainant must establish, on the balance of probabilities, that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(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.

B. Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant does not rely upon a registered trade mark. It asserts unregistered trade mark or service mark rights in SOFAX BANQUE.

For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy, unregistered rights may be established where the evidence demonstrates that a designation has acquired distinctiveness as an identifier of the Complainant's goods or services. Relevant considerations include the duration and nature of the use, the extent of commercial activity, public recognition and other circumstances demonstrating that the designation functions as a source identifier.

The Panel has considered the Complaint, the additional submissions made pursuant to PO1 and the supporting evidence.

The evidence establishes that the Complainant has operated under the name SOFAX BANQUE since 1995 and has conducted regulated banking activities in France over a substantial period. The Complainant is identified under that designation in the ACPR's official records and in independent banking-sector information. The evidence also demonstrates continuing commercial activity under that name.

The Panel recognises that the Complainant provides banking services principally to companies within the TotalEnergies Group. In assessing whether the designation SOFAX BANQUE has acquired distinctiveness, the Panel has considered the nature of those services and the relevant commercial audience. Recognition among a specialised group of commercial customers may suffice for the purposes of establishing unregistered service mark rights under the UDRP Policy.

The Panel has also considered the use made of the disputed domain name. The corresponding website prominently displayed the SOFAX BANQUE and purported to offer banking services under that designation. While such apparent targeting does not, of itself, establish unregistered service mark rights, it lends support to the inference that the designation had acquired significance as a source identifier.

The Panel does not regard the Complainant's corporate registration or regulatory authorisation, taken alone, as sufficient to establish unregistered service mark rights. Nor does the French trade mark application filed on 2 October 2026 establish registered trade mark rights for the purposes of this proceeding. Nevertheless, having considered the evidence cumulatively, including the longstanding use of SOFAX BANQUE, the Complainant's regulated banking activities, its independent identification under that designation and the Respondent's apparent targeting of its identity, the Panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that SOFAX BANQUE has acquired sufficient distinctiveness as a source identifier within the relevant banking market to constitute an unregistered service mark for the purposes of the UDRP Policy.

Turning to confusing similarity, the disputed domain name incorporates SOFAX, the distinctive component of SOFAX BANQUE, preceded by the term "pay". The word "BANQUE" describes the Complainant's banking services. Its omission, together with the addition of "pay", does not prevent SOFAX from remaining recognisable within the disputed domain name. The generic Top-Level Domain <.com> is a standard registration requirement and does not affect the assessment of confusing similarity.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a service mark in which the Complainant has rights and that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy has been established.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent has been authorised to use the SOFAX BANQUE designation or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The evidence shows that the disputed domain name was used for a website prominently displaying the SOFAX BANQUE name and presenting itself as a banking institution. The website advertised banking services, including account-opening facilities, online banking access and financial products.

In these circumstances, the Panel considers that the website was presented in a manner calculated to create the false impression that it was operated or authorised by the Complainant. Such use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

The Respondent has provided no evidence capable of rebutting the Complainant's prima facie case.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy has been established.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of, and an intention to target, the Complainant and its SOFAX BANQUE service mark.

The Complainant's use of SOFAX BANQUE substantially predates the registration of the disputed domain name on 19 April 2026. The disputed domain name combines SOFAX, the distinctive component of that designation, with the term "pay", which is directly associated with banking and financial transactions.

The use made of the disputed domain name confirms that conclusion. The corresponding website prominently displayed SOFAX BANQUE branding, presented itself as an online banking service and invited Internet users to open accounts and access banking facilities. The Panel considers it implausible that the disputed domain name was selected independently of the Complainant and its identity.

The evidence also establishes that the disputed domain name was included in the ABE Infoservice regulatory blacklist on 4 June 2026, in categories including professional identity theft. This provides independent support for the conclusion that the website was used deceptively.

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SOFAX BANQUE service mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. Such conduct falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy.

The Panel does not consider it necessary to determine whether any Internet user actually opened an account, transferred funds or suffered financial loss. The evidence of the Respondent's deliberate impersonation and the use made of the disputed domain name is sufficient to support the finding of bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy has been established.

E. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the UDRP Policy and Rule 15 of the UDRP Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <paysofax.com> be transferred to the Complainant, SOFAX BANQUE.