The Complainant says the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its registered trademarks as they contain the Complainant's trademark in its entirety with the addition of some new characters which do not alter the impression or that fact. Indeed, when a distinctive trademark is paired with less distinctive terms, the combination will typically be found to be confusingly similar to the distinctive trademark. See WIPO - D2007-1140 - MasterCard International Incorporated v. Michael J Yanda, Indy Web Productions and WIPO - D2001 0026 - Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited. v. Tim Healy/BOSTH and WIPO - D2000 1487 - Heineken Brouwerijen B.V. v. Mark Lott.
As the Panel found in the previous case between these parties, the new characters/terms are conceptually closely linked to the banking and financial services world, and therefore likely to increase the risk of confusion. Further, they do not change the overall impression that the registrant is connected to the Complainant or prevent the likelihood of confusion or association.
Moreover, the mark BOURSORAMA is a fanciful term, distinctive only for the Complainant. It has no ordinary meaning whatsoever in English, French or in any other language. A Google search of the expression BOURSORAMA displays several results, all of them related to the Complainant.
Thus the Panel finds the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
As to whether the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, according to WIPO case no. D2003-0455, “Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.”, 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 burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
In this case, the Complainant says the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorized by it in any way and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. On the fact of it the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and is not related in any way to its business. Past panels have held a Respondent not commonly known by a domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the domain name and here the Respondent is not known as "BOURSORAMA". See the Forum Case - FA699652 - Braun Corp. v. Loney and Forum Case - FA139720 - Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi. Furthermore, the disputed domain names resolve to an inactive page (“passive holding”) since registration, so there is no use. The Respondent has not come forward and has advanced no basis on which we could conclude that he has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and none is obvious on the face of the matter. See WIPO Case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi and the Forum Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket / JM Consultants. Therefore, the Panel finds the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
As to whether the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith, a Google search on the expression BOURSORAMA displays several results, all of them related to the Complainant. See CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas and WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar with the Complainant's well known trademarks BOURSORAMA. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, and given the fact of the previous case, between these same parties over similar marks, the Panel finds this Respondent registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks and the intention to free-ride on them. Here there was clearly actual knowledge due to the previous case.
The Complainant has discharged its burden of proof on all three limbs of the Policy.
|