PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
1. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <boursorama.online> is identical to its trademark and branded services BOURSORAMA. The Complainant states that it is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA, in particular CTM no. 001758614 registered on 19 October 2001 and that in France, BOURSORAMA is the online banking reference with over 505,000 customers in late 2013. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information website.
2. According to the Complainant's allegations the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant further states that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Complainant asserts that it neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, according to the Complainant, any website used with the domain name <boursorama.online> will create a risk of confusion with its trademark, since its core business is developed online.
3. The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its well-known trademark BOURSORAMA that is also registered in the Trade Mark Clearing House (TMCH) since 16 April 2014. Thus, the Respondent was necessarily aware of the trademark when he registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant refers to previous decisions in which other panels confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant and its trademark. Furthermore the Complainant contends that the Respondent has redirected the contested domain name to a "coming soon" page and has failed to demonstrate any preparation to use it in connection with a legitimate purpose. Moreover, the Complainant does not envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate, as internet users could likely believe that the disputed domain name and corresponding website are operated by, or affiliated with, the Complainant.
The Complainant therefore requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
RESPONDENT:
1. According to the Respondent’s allegations the Complainant has no trademark rights, especially from where the domain is registered. In fact, according to the Respondent, this domain will host site for target audience in India. In this regard, the Respondent notes that BOURSORAMA is not a registered trademark in India. In addition it is neither well-known or famous in any aspect for the target audience, nor has it any presence at all in India. Finally, the Respondent notes that BOURSORAMA is not a trade mark or any sort of business identifier in any aspect for target audience.
The Respondent contends that the term BourSoRama translates to ‘Stories of RAMA’, being RAMA a well-known god in context of Hindu religion, the most followed religion in India. BourSoRama.online represents therefore the idea of having stories of lord RAMA online.
2. According to the Respondent’s allegations the disputed domain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the protected mark, because it is formed with a so called "portmanteau effect" in English language, which suggests that there are three words ‘Bour’ ‘So’ ‘Rama’ that are put together. In the Respondent's view, these terms are to be translated into ‘Story of Rama’ which has no relation whatsoever with the business online services offered by the Complainant. The Respondent confirms that it is not related to any activity of the Complainant and that the website to be presented under the disputed domain name will not have any relation to Complainant's activity. However, in the Respondent’s view having no relation to the Complainant is no grounds to assume that the Respondent does not have legitimate right to make use of disputed domain name.
3. In addition, the Respondent alleges that it has legitimate and non commercial interest in the domain name.
It acknowledges that the Complainant could be the owner of trademark and business firms in Europe, but that this does not automatically translate to the worldwide rights for similar sounding domain or business names for all gTLDs. In this regard, the Respondent does not intent to infringe the rights over the domains owned by the Complainant. The Respondent rather wishes to protect his own right as the owner of a different domain, i.e. "BourSoRama.Online". Furthermore, the Respondent asserts that he will use the disputed domain name for a good cause, i.e. to promote eLearning & bring awareness to power of internet in rural parts of India where online stories of the most popular mythical character RAMA can act as a catalyst for kids to embrace the power of internet. This will be a legitimate non-commercial platform for kids to benefit from picture stories available online. The Respondent further contends that such a website will be supported by ad-revenue.
4. In addition, the Respondent claims that the disputed domain name has not been registered in bad faith and certainly had not been used in bad faith. In the Respondent's view the Complaint did not provide any supporting elements in support of its allegations. In particular, with regard to the Complainant’s allegation following which the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any preparation to use the domain name, the Respondent contends that as a matter of fact this allegation itself shall not be sustainable as like any other website, the design, creation, content preparation and launch of site takes considerable time and cannot be achieved merely in one month. Moreover, the Respondent contends that he did not act in bad faith or with the desire to sell the disputed domain name for profit gain. Additionally, in order to confirm his good faith, the Respondent contends that he is ready to sign a memorandum of understanding confirming amongst others, not to sell the disputed domain name for the next three years and validate eventual selling transactions over next 10 years with the Complainant or its representative, giving absolute priority to Complainant in case it wishes to acquire this domain name.
The Respondent requests to deny the remedies requested by the Complainant.
|