It is necessary for the complainant, if it is to succeed in this administrative proceeding, to prove each of the three elements referred to in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, namely that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
1.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <bollorelogistic.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark "bollore logistics" of the Complainant.
The Complainant has shown that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <bollorelogistic.com>. Further the Panel granted that the Respondent is a competitor to the Complainant.
Moreover, the Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, provided evidence that the disputed domain name <bollorelogistic.com> resolves to a website that offers Complainants products in competition with the Complainant. The Complainant further rightfully contends that the Respondent has not developed a legitimate use in respect of the disputed domain name. Competing use is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Complainant contends that the Respondent was seeking to use the disputed domain name only to divert consumers to its own website and that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
In lack of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <bollorelogistic.com>.
The Complainant also asserted and proved that the Respondent tried to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant rightfully contended that <bollorelogistic.com> is confusingly similar to the prior trademark of the Complainant, as registered. The Complainant also referred to the distinctiveness and reputation of its trademark.
This makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant's prior trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant rightfully contended that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name intentionally to attract visitors for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark <bollorelogistic.com>, and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name with that intention, namely in bad faith. Bad faith is evident in form of typosquatting. Reference is made also to eg. CAC Case No. 102221, CAC case No. 101036, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG vs. SKYRXSHOP - dulcolax.xyz and WIPO Case no. D2014-0306 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Klinik Sari Padma, BAKTI HUSADA.
2.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <bolloreusa.com> is confusingly similar to the international trademark "bollore" of the Complainant. Indeed, the trademark BOLLORE is included in its entirety, see e.g. WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.
The geographical suffix does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. Please see for instance CAC Case No. 102656, BOLLORE v. Chris Bull <bollore-uk.com>.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Complainant contends and provides evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers Complainants products in competition with the Complainant. The Complainant further rightfully contends that the Respondent has not developed a legitimate use in respect of the disputed domain name. Competing use is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant contends that the Respondent was seeking to use the disputed domain name only to divert consumers to its own website, please see e.g. Forum Case No. FA 1654759, Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik.
In lack of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <bolloreusa.com>.
The Complainant also asserted and proved that the Respondent tried to attract internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks. The Complainant rightfully contended that <bolloreusa.com> is confusingly similar to the prior trademark of the Complainant, as registered. The Complainant also referred to the distinctiveness and reputation of its trademarks.
This makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant's prior trademark rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant rightfully contended that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name intentionally to attract visitors for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks, and that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name with that intention, namely in bad faith. Reference is made also to: CAC case N° 101036, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG vs. SKYRXSHOP - dulcolax.xyz and WIPO Case no. D2014-0306 Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG v. Klinik Sari Padma, BAKTI HUSADA.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that both disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith and that the Complaint succeeds under the third element of the Policy.
|