1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names <boursorama-2dsps.com>,
<boursorama-2dsps.net>, <boursorama-adhs.com> are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s word mark BOURSORAMA as they reproduce the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of a hyphen followed by the term “2dsps” - which can be interpreted as misspelt versions of the terms “DPS2” (standing for “Directive on Services for Payment with 2 factors”) - and “adhs” and the generic Top Level Domains “.com” and “net”. As stated in a number of prior decisions rendered under the UDRP, these minor changes are not sufficient to prevent a likelihood of confusion.
The Panel also finds that also the disputed domain name <bousoramad2spp.com> is confusingly similar to BOURSORAMA since the trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name despite the omission of the letter “r”, and the addition of the term “2spp” and of the generic Top Level Domain “.com” are insufficient to exclude confusing similarity. As found in prior similar UDRP cases, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is still considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
2. The Complainant stated that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence of the fact that the Respondent might have been commonly known by the disputed domain names or by a name corresponding to the disputed domain names. According to the evidence on records, the Respondent has simply passively held the disputed domain names and has not submitted any evidence showing that it made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or that it has made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Therefore, and in the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
3. As to bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, with which the disputed domain names are confusingly similar, and of the prior registration and use of the trademark by the Complainant in connection with the Complainant’s services in France, where the Respondent is based, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names. Indeed, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, corresponding to the Complainant’s well-known trademark BOURSORAMA, suggests that the Respondent acted in opportunistic bad faith, with a deliberate intent to create an impression of an association with the Complainant.
Moreover, the disputed domain names have not been used in connection with an active web site, i.e. they have been passively held. As established in a number of prior cases, the concept of “bad faith use” in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy includes not only positive action but also passive holding, especially in cases of domain name registrations corresponding to distinctive and well-known trademarks; see i.a. the landmark case Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
In light of Internet users’ presumption of trustworthiness in domain names consisting in or incorporating registered trademarks, the Panel finds that, when domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks of banks or other financial institutions, the potential risks posed by phishing must be considered an additional circumstance evidencing bad faith, since phishing emails received from email accounts based on such domain names are even more misleading to recipients.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
|