As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:<\/p>\n
(a) the Complainant is a French leading cooperative bank founded in 1919, with more than 1,3 million customers and net income of 391 million euros, and operating in more than 150 countries;<\/span> The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " THE COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:<\/span><\/p>\n (a) <\/span>the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademark as it includes the term BRED in its entirety. The addition of the term “COFI” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BRED. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s Trademark.<\/p>\n (b) the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. 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. The disputed domain name resolved to a login page displaying the denomination COFIBRED<\/span>. This page could be used in order to collect personal information of the Complainant’s clients. Thus, the Respondent’s website cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of services or fair use, since the website can mislead the consumers into believing that they are accessing the Complainant’s website. Now the domain name is inactive and the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n (c) the Respondent is identified as COFIBRED, located 18 QUAI DE LA RAPEE 75012 PARIS France. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent should have known of the Complainant and its rights, as this information directly relates to the subsidiary of the Complainant. G<\/span>iven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's Trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent, who tried to pass off as the Complainant's subsidiary, has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark. The disputed domain name resolved to a login page displaying the denomination COFIBRED. This website did not contain any information about the Respondent. Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. As a result, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT: 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 <\/span>within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP<\/strong>\" or \"Policy<\/strong>\").<\/span> 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).<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"bad_faith": " 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).<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " 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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Michal Matějka (Presiding Panelist)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-11-29 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the registered owner of French trademark BRED, reg. no. 3521371, registered on 1 February 2008 (\"Complainant's Trademark<\/strong>\").<\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain name <cofibred.com> was registered on 21 August 2025.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"cofibred.com": "TRANSFERRED"
}
}
(b) the Complainant is the owner of Complainant’s Trademark;<\/span>
(c) the Complainant owns various domain names including the same verbal element BRED, for example <bred.fr>, registered since 28 September 1995; and<\/span>
(d) when the Complainant was informed of the registration of the disputed domain name, it resolved to a login page displaying the denomination COFIBRED and at the filing date of the complaint it is inactive.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>",
"other_legal_proceedings": "
The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>",
"rights": "
<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "