A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the "BOURSORAMA" trademark since 2001.
The Panel now turns to analyze the potential confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the trademark. As per the evidence on record, all the disputed domain names reproduce the trademark in its totality, namely, "BOURSORAMA".
In the case of the first disputed domain name, <boursorama-2dp.com>, the trademark is reproduced verbatim with the addition of a hyphen and the term "2dp". Similarly, the second disputed domain name <boursorama-2dsp.com> includes the verbatim reproduction of the trademark, a hyphen, and the term "2dsp". Lastly, the third disputed domain name <boursorama-2sd.com> consists of the verbatim reproduction of the trademark, a hyphen, and the term "2sd".
The addition of these terms, namely "2dp", "2dsp", and "2sd" is immaterial, and therefore not substantive enough to dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademarks. This addition may enhance the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademarks, as the terms appear to refer to e-payment services, which is an area of business of the Complainant. However, further analysis will be discussed under the following elements.
Based on this, the Panel finds the disputed domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. As a result, the Panel determines that the Complaint has satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As per the evidence on record, and noting that the Respondent failed to produce allegations or evidence necessary to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the uncontested facts indicate that:
1. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
2. The Respondent is not known or affiliated with the Complainant.
3. It is not authorized to carry out any activity for the Complainant.
4. Has no business dealings with the Complainant.
In failing to respond to the Complainant's contentions, the Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case.
Additionally, the disputed domain names are not actively used as they redirect to an error page as per evidence on record. The Respondent does not appear to have used the disputed domain names since their registration. There is no evidence suggesting that Respondent has demonstrable plans to use the disputed domain names. Past panels have held that the lack of use of a domain name is considered an essential indicator of the absence of legitimate interests by the Respondent. In this case, in particular, the Respondent's reproduction of the trademark with terms commonly associated with e-payment services appears to fall under an attempt for commercial gain to divert consumers misleadingly or tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue; further analysis will be discussed under the last element. But for the purposes of this element, this cannot be considered to confer rights or legitimate interests to the Respondent.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Therefore, the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds, as per the evidence on record, that the Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain names. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Respondent appears to be located in France, the principal place of business of the Complainant, and reproduced the trademark in all the disputed domain names. Additionally, the disputed domain names include three terms, namely "2dp", "2dsp", and "2sd", which appear to refer to e-payment services; an area of business of the Complainant, in an apparent effort to divert consumers and obtain a financial gain misleadingly.
All this leads the Panel to conclude that that the most likely intention of the Respondent about the disputed domain names was to intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website/Domain Name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website and/or Domain Name (see paragraph 3.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the preceding reasons and in conformity with the provisions contained under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant.
|