FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The disputed domain name <bollorenc.com> was registered on March 9th, 2020. The disputed domain name is inactive.
The disputed domain name <bollorenc.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®.
Indeed, the addition of letters “NC” (refers to the New-Caledonia) with the trademark BOLLORE® is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
Moreover, it is well established that TLDs are usually disregarded under the analysis of the identity.
Finally, prior UDRP confirmed the Complaint’s rights. Please see for instance:
- CAC Case No. 102675, Bollore v. Bill Brown Construction Co <boiiore.com>;
- CAC Case No. 102254, BOLLORE v. Milton Liqours lLC <bollcre.com>;
- CAC Case No. 101974, BOLLORE v. Adileo Barone <bollorè.com>.
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bollorenc.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®.
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 UDRP.
The Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name in the Whois database, and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this term. Past Panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by BOLLORE 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 license 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 <bollorenc.com> by the Complainant.
The disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name <bollorenc.com>.
The Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE® is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE® in the following cases:
- CAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john (“the Panel takes note, again, of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's brand and the intention that must be presumed to exist in registering a domain name bearing such confusing similarity with well-known brand name.”);
- CAC Case No. 101696, BOLLORE v. Hubert Dadoun (“As the Complainant is also one of the largest 500 companies in the world, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that their trademark has a strong reputation and is in fact to be considered well-known.”)".
Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name <bollorenc.com> without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark.
Besides, the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
Although the domain name now appears to be inactive, it has been set up with MX which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|