FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant contends that the BOLLORE group was founded in 1822 and now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines: Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions. It is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, the majority interest of the Group's stock is always controlled by the Bolloré family. In addition to its activities, the Group manages a number of financial assets including plantations and financial investments.
The disputed domain name <ibollore.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE. Indeed, the trademark BOLLORE is included in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the letter “i” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE. According to Complainant, this is a clear case of "typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant further contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOLLORE. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Moreover, neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE or apply for registration of the disputed domain name <ibollore.com> by the Complainant.
The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOLLORE. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.
Besides, the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. Indeed, the Respondent attempted to pass off as an employee of the Complainant’s subsidiary BOLLORE LOGISTICS, in order to receive payment into a false bank account. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a non-commercial or fair use.
Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further contends the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark BOLLORE. Besides, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme. Indeed, the same day the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent used it to pass off as Mr. SCHORNSTEIN, accountant of the Complainant’s subsidiary BOLLORE LOGISTICS. That way, the Respondent attempted to receive payment in place of BOLLORE LOGISTICS. It is well-established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use.
Consequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|