ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION La Banque Populaire Val de France v. Kaparthi Jonnalagadda Case No. D2025-4638

1. The Parties

The Complainant is La Banque Populaire Val de France, France, represented by La SELARL JB avocat, France.

The Respondent is Kaparthi Jonnalagadda, India, represented by Cylaw Solutions, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in French with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7, 2025. On November 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 10, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 11, 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, in French, on November 12, 2025.

On November 11, 2025, the Center informed the parties in English and French, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is English. On November 12, 2025, the Complainant confirmed its request that French be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent objected to the Complainant’s request.

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 13, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 3, 2025. The Respondent requested on November 27, 2025, an extension of the Response due date. The Respondent was granted the automatic four calendar day extension for response under paragraph 5(b) of the Rules and the Response was therefore due December 7, 2025. The Response was filed in English with the Center on December 1, 2025.

The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 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

The Complainant is a French credit provider, part of the BCPE group. The Complainant provides credit to buyers and private investors in connection with new residential programs under the VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark since 2012.

The Complainant operates the domain name and owns the domain name

(registered on December 8, 2014).

The disputed domain name was registered on April 21, 2005, and resolves to a parked webpage offering it for sale for USD 89,999.

The Respondent is a domain name investor based in India, holding other four-letter domain names.

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.

Initially, the Complainant requests that French be the language of the proceedings given that, not only the disputed domain name makes reference to the VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark used by the Complainant which is the owner of the trademark BANQUE POPULAIRE VAL DE FRANCE, declared notorious in France, but also to the fact that the Respondent selected a privacy protection service so as to conceal its identity, resulting the need to translate the Complaint into English a disproportional charge on the Complainant.

Notably, the Complainant asserts to be a French credit provider, part of the BPCE group, providing credit services under the unregistered VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark since 2012, which became a distinctive trademark given the more than 570,000 clients served and revenues of more than EUR 1.6 million in 2022.

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name fully incorporates its VDFT mark, being likely to cause confusion and to lead consumers to mistakenly believe that the disputed domain name is affiliated with or sponsored by the Complainant.

page 3

Under the Complainant’s view the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name given that the Respondent:

i. selected a privacy protection service so as to conceal its identity;

ii. never acquired rights authorizing it to register or use the disputed domain name; and

iii. does not use, and has not made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.

Lastly, the Complainant sustains that its VDFT mark is notorious in its segment, there being no good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, who selected a privacy protection service to conceal its identity, what makes it impossible to conceive any good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put other than to infringe the Complainant’s rights or to harm Internet users and customers of the Complainant. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is being offered for sale for large amounts which are in excess of the registration costs, a further indicative of the Respondent’s bad faith and intent to profit on the Complainant’s notoriety.

B. Respondent

In its Response, the Respondent contends the following:

The language of the proceedings is to be English given that that is the language of the disputed domain name registration agreement. Furthermore, the Respondent is located in India and understands only English and the local Indian languages. Moreover, given that the Complainant is represented by counsel, could and should have ensured that the Complaint and supporting documents were filed in English, particularly after the Center’s explicit invitation.

The Respondent asserts to be a generic four-letter domain investor, having registered the disputed domain name for its inherent value as a four-letter domain name and which can be used in connection with different fields and meanings, making it a valuable asset. The Respondent further asserts to own other four-letter domain names in his portfolio.

The Respondent submits that he has never solicited the Complainant, nor has he at any time used the disputed domain name either to interfere with the Complainant’s activities, to cause harm to the Complainant, or in any manner that could be regarded as bad faith under the Policy.

The Respondent argues that a “straightforward search of the WIPO Global Brand Database confirms that there is no registered trademark for 'VDFT’ anywhere in the world”, and more than that, the Complainant should fail at the first element given that it has not shown apparent common law or unregistered rights in

“VDFT” visible from open-source Internet searches.

Moreover, the Respondent sustains that the domain name has never been actively used (Annex VI to the Response) and that the webpage available at https://www.banquepopulaire.fr/valdefrance/professionnels/banque-populaire-val-de-france-immobilier/val- de-france-transactions does not use the acronym VDFT being it unclear on what basis the Complainant claims to have any trademark rights (registered or unregistered) in the acronym “VDFT”.

Under the Respondent’s point of view, there is simply no exclusive right in “VDFT” that can be assumed in favor of the Complainant, as it is merely an acronym of the Complainant’s subsidiary corporate name, also not having the Complainant shown use of “VDFT” as an unregistered mark in an open, continuous, extensive, and uninterrupted manner over any significant period so as to acquire common law rights or acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning).

page 4

As to his rights or legitimate interest, the Respondent argues that he has been a domain name investor for the last numerous years and maintains a portfolio of hundreds of domain names, including numerous four- letter domain names, what is not against the Policy.

Lastly, the Respondent reiterates that he had no knowledge of the Complainant or its subsidiary company until having received notice of these proceedings. Furthermore, the offer for sale of the disputed domain name is rather a legitimate use on the part of a domain name investor and does not violate the Policy given that the Respondent has not targeted the Complainant which, in its turn did not have any rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name over “VDFT”.

The Respondent submits that given that the Complainant is represented by counsel, it ought to have undertaken a minimal due diligence before filing the Complaint and should be held to a higher standard and found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”).

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Matter – Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is English. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in French. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be French given that, under its view, the disputed domain name makes reference to the VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS or VDFT mark used by the Complainant which is the owner of the trademark BANQUE POPULAIRE VAL DE FRANCE, declared notorious in France; also having the Respondent selected a privacy protection service so as to conceal his identity, thus resulting the need to translate the Complaint into English a disproportional charge on the Complainant.

The Respondent requested that the language of the proceeding be English as he does not understand French.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2. Substantive Matter

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark 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.

page 5

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 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant contends that it has unregistered rights in the VDFT mark by virtue of its use since 2012 in connection with its VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS credit service.

As foreseen in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3, “to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services. Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys.”

However, the Complainant has failed to produce sufficient evidence showing actual use of the acronym

“VDFT” in its commercial activities as a source identifier, being it the Panel’s view that the Complainant relied solely on the fact that such is the acronym of VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS. The lack of any unregistered trademark in VDFT is further corroborated by the Complainant’s webpage available at https://www.banquepopulaire.fr/valdefrance/professionnels/banque-populaire-val-de-france-immobilier/val- de-france-transactions in which at no point the acronym is used in a trademark sense.

In addition to that, in spite of apparently owning the domain name , no use of this domain name, present or past could be found.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has not been established in the present proceeding.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for its intrinsic four-letter nature and is entitled to offer it for sale, especially considering that the Respondent has never targeted the Complainant or used the disputed domain name in a manner that could be found harmful to the Complainant or Internet users.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has not been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is being offered for sale, but this is not sufficient on its own, considering the circumstances of this case, to conclude that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proving registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith targeting of the Complainant or its trademark rights because the Complainant did not prove that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name due to its significance in relation to the Complainant or any trademark of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant did not prove to be well- known as VDFT, at the time that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1. While the Panel notes that there seemed to have been a change of use of the disputed domain name around 2013 (according to Wayback Machine), and it is plausible that the Respondent may have acquired the disputed domain name at a time different to the original creation date, the Complainant did not provide any relevant evidence showing that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant with the

page 6

disputed domain name at any point in time. On the contrary, the Panel finds more likely than not that the Respondent registered it due to its value as a four-letter domain name.

The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.

This is a clear case in which the Complainant, represented by Counsel, ought to have known that it could not have succeeded under the Policy: the Complainant has not shown unregistered rights over VDFT; the disputed domain name was registered in 2005 (without evidence showing a later acquisition by the Respondent), well before the Complainant started offering its VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS service in 2012; the disputed domain name consists of a four letter domain name that can be read as different acronyms; the Complainant intends to rely on its alleged notoriety which however does not extend to VAL DE FRANCE TRANSACTIONS and particularly not to VDFT based on the evidence provided by the Complainant; there is no bad faith use by the Respondent, who is not and has never targeted the Complainant.

The Panel finds that the Complaint has been brought in bad faith and constitutes an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied and the Complainant is found guilty of RDNH.

/Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: December 26, 2025