FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant was founded in 1822. Thanks to a diversification strategy based on innovation and international development, it now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines, Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions.
The Complainant 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. The BOLLORE Group has 84,000 employees world-wide with the turnover that equals to 24,843 million euros, operating income in the amount of 1,259 million euros and the shareholders' equity in the amount of 25,942 million euros based on the results in 2019.
DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE PROTECTED MARK
The disputed domain name <bollore-usa.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE. Indeed, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.
The addition of the letters “USA” (which refers to the United States) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOLLORE. It is well-established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP. (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).
Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated (WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.).
Finally, past Panels confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the term “BOLLORE” (WIPO Case No. D2017-0442, Bollore v. Wuxi Yilian LLC <bollore-us.com>).
Thus, the disputed domain name <bollore-usa.com> is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN THE 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 UDRP. (WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.)
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. 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. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name (Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com>).
The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that 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.
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.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Therefore, 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, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name <bollore-usa.com>.
THE DOMAIN NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
The Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE is well-known and distinctive, and the Complainant is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE (CAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john; CAC Case No. 101696, BOLLORE v. Hubert Dadoun).
Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark.
Furthermore, the domain name resolves to an inactive page. Besides, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records. 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, an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law, or an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website.
As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).
Consequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|