September 6,
2023 Website blocked due to fraud risk.
September 6,
2023 Website blocked due to fraud risk.
September 6,
2023 Website blocked due to fraud risk.
...
September 6,
2023 Website blocked due to fraud risk.
September 6,
2023 Website blocked due to fraud risk.
September 6,
2023 Website blocked due to fraud risk.
...
2024-02-01 - Case Details
DÉCISION DE LA COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE
Boursorama contre Laurence Roussel, banking-related-fraud-
boursobankfinance.com
Litige No. D2024-4763
1. Les parties
Le Requérant est Boursorama, France, représenté par Nameshield, France.
Le Défendeur est Laurence Roussel, banking-related-fraud-boursobankfinance.com, France.
2. Nom de domaine et unité d’enregistrement
Le nom de domaine litigieux fraud-boursobankfinance.com> est enregistré auprès de
Squarespace Domains II LLC (ci-après désigné “l’Unité d’enregistrement”).
3. ...
2025-01-16 - Case Details
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests given that the Domain Name is not authorised by the Complainant and the Domain Name has been used for fraud impersonating the Complainant.
The Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith because the Respondent has taken advantage of the Complainant’s well-known trade mark by using the Domain Name to perpetuate fraud.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is well accepted that use of a domain name to perpetuate fraud constitutes bad faith (see section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). That fraud was the intention of the Respondent upon registration of the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name has been used for fraud, is clear from the evidence discussed above.
...
2020-12-04 - Case Details
Such a finding of total fraud upon the dispute resolution process requires clear and convincing evidence, not merely a preponderance of the evidence.
...Rather, Complainant’s theme dissolves by evidence it has had no chance to cross examine, into a perhaps sincere hope and speculation, but not adequate proof, for the point it is making. The mere fact that such a fraud would be easy to perpetrate in this process, can not be taken as evidence that the fraud was perpetrated in this case. ...
2002-10-28 - Case Details
The Complainant has presented credible, uncontroverted evidence that the Domain Name has been used to impersonate an employee of the Complainant for the purposes of immigration fraud. Previous UDRP panels have categorically held that use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., phishing, impersonation, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.13.1).
...It is well accepted that use of a domain name to perpetuate fraud constitutes bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.4). The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the Domain Name has been used for fraud as set out above.
...
2021-12-15 - Case Details
The present of the word “fraud” cannot eliminate this risk of confusion.
No fraud whatsoever has been committed by the Complainant. ...The Panel therefore finds that the additions “bank” and “fraud” are not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Trade Mark.
...
2011-06-06 - Case Details
The email addresses incorporating the Domain Names in the Fraud Scheme are also highly similar in their structure. The Domain Names used in the Fraud Scheme (all except ) have been used in email addresses which included the full name or first name initials and family name of Complainants’ two employees.
...The Domain Names were used to create email addresses in the context of the Fraud Scheme described above. Per Complaint, when Complainant discovered the Fraud Scheme, it filed takedown actions before the relevant entities which confirmed to have taken appropriate actions regarding the Domain Names , , and .
...
2021-12-23 - Case Details
Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here email-based fraud, can never confer
rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here email-based fraud, constitutes bad
faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s
evidence establishes that the disputed domain name has been used for email-based fraud in terms of which
the Complainant is impersonated in order to defraud potential customers, as set out in the Factual
Background section above. ...
2024-03-15 - Case Details
c) Respondent is using the Domain Name to impersonate Complainant in emails to Complainant’s affiliates and third party business customers in an effort to perpetrate fraud. Therefore, Complainant has no legitimate interests other than fraud. Complainant has been made aware of these fraudulent emails in connection with the misleading use of Complainant’s name in the Domain Name. ...d) There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name, and there is no justification or apparent need for Respondent to use “accenture” in the Domain Name other than fraud. The website at the Domain Name is currently merely a landing page that diverts customers to other pages.
...
2018-09-21 - Case Details
It is well established that “the use of a domain name for illegal activity[,] [such as] phishing, […] impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud[,] can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.” WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1; see id. ...Accordingly, where a respondent uses a domain name to impersonate a complainant or perpetrate fraud through emails, a complainant should provide evidence of such activity, not unsupported allegations or conclusory statements. ...
2019-04-10 - Case Details
The use of a disputed domain name to commit fraud has in prior cases generally considered by UDRP panels as evidence that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name – for example; “Second, Complainant responds to the Procedural Order by providing evidence of Respondent’s illegal activity, namely, using the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant in emails to third parties to perpetrate fraud. ...In similar circumstances, UDRP panels have decided the following – for example: “It is well accepted that use of a domain name to perpetuate fraud constitutes bad faith (see section 3.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). That fraud was the intention of the Respondent upon registration of the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name has been used for fraud, is clear from the evidence discussed above”. ...
2021-06-28 - Case Details
Given that the first attempt at such financial fraud occurred the day after registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent, it is likely that the registration was made and planned with that purpose in mind. The Panel notes that there was more than one attempt to use the Disputed Domain Name to engage in financial fraud by seeking to change the Complainant’s banking information. The Respondent provides no explanation for such use of, or rebuttal of allegations of attempted fraud using, the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2018-06-01 - Case Details
Fortunately, the single-letter difference in the email address was noted, and the fraud was
prevented. The email fraud scheme is consistent with a pattern of such targeted attacks against the
Complainant in 2023 and 2024, as reflected in multiple UDRP proceedings.
...Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (here, with substantial
documented evidence of impersonation and attempted fraud by email) can never confer rights or legitimate
interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
...
2025-01-20 - Case Details
In particular, Complainant alleges that Respondent has engaged in “reshipping fraud” (or “parcel mule scam”), which constitutes registration and use in bad faith. The US Postal Service (US Post Office Publication 300A) describes this illegal activity as:
“A relatively new scheme targeting businesses and credit card owners is ‘reshipping fraud.’ ...It also appears that Respondent is using the EBAY mark to facilitate reshipping fraud. The disputed domain name provides job opportunities under the Recruitment Services tab on its website. ...
2015-09-08 - Case Details
The
Complainant has presented evidence of the Domain Name being used for email-based fraud, specifically, to
send emails impersonating the Complainant and its Executive Director, requesting payment of a fraudulent
invoice.
5. ...The Complainant has presented evidence of the Domain Name being used for email-based fraud, specifically, to send emails impersonating the Complainant a...
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
B. ...
2023-03-07 - Case Details
AlgaeCal Fraud, supra. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to conceal its true identity further manifests bad faith in the circumstances of this case.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As noted in AlgaeCal Inc. v. AlgaeCal Fraud, supra, the inflammatory contents of the website linked to the disputed domain name manifest a calculated intention to cause injury and disruption to the Complainant’s trademarks, reputation and business.
...
2014-01-08 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 3
UDRP Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g. impersonation or
other types of fraud, as in this case) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (WIPO
Overview 3.0 at section 2.13). ...As for bad faith use, it is well accepted that use of a domain name to perpetuate fraud constitutes bad faith
use (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.4). The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the Domain Name
has been used for email-based fraud.
...
2022-05-13 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 3
UDRP Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g. impersonation or
other types of fraud as in this case) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent (WIPO
Overview 3.0 at section 2.13). ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is well accepted that use of a domain name to perpetuate fraud constitutes bad faith use (WIPO Overview
3.0 at section 3.4). The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the Domain Name has been used for
email-based fraud as set out above.
...
2022-03-25 - Case Details
It provides detailed evidence about this fraud and how it was perpetrated
and says it was initially successful and resulted in a very large loss to the Complainant. ...In fact there is no evidence at all that anybody even knows of the Complainant. Notably, the fraud that is at
the center of the Complaint is a fraud upon the Complainant itself, not a fraud on a customer. ...
2024-05-14 - Case Details
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name because the purpose of the Domain Name registration was to perpetrate fraud. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Domain Name was registered with the sole purpose of perpetrating fraud.
...- The Complainant submitted a copy of a witness report filed with the Austrian Police, showing that the Respondent has been using the Domain Name to perpetrate fraud. The essence of fraud is that the Respondent has used the Domain Name to pose as senior executive of the Complainant and to send false emails on behalf of that executive making the emails look like genuine emails coming from that executive. ...
2015-04-14 - Case Details