The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
The disputed domain name <boursomama-banque.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA® and its domain names associated. The substitution of the letter “R” by the letter “M” and the addition of the term “BANQUE” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSORAMA®. Therefore, it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names associated.
Past Panels have confirmed the confusing similarity in similar cases. For instance, WIPO Case No. D2021-4037, Alstom v. Victor Marin (“The Panel notes that the disputed domain name substitutes the letter “m” in the trademark ALSTOM with the letter “n”, which is a very similar-appearing character in the sense of the above doctrine and adjacent keyboard letter. In the Panel’s view, this single-letter difference in the element “alston” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between this element and the Complainant’s trademark, in particular regarding its appearance and pronunciation (see, e.g., Accenture Global Services Limited v. Tulip Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2015-1520 for a similar case where a “t” had been substituted by an “r”). Furthermore, the addition of the term “group” to the confusingly similar element “alston” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9). In the light of the above, the Panel concludes that the relevant mark ALSTOM remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name which contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of that trademark.”).
Moreover, the addition of the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOURSORAMA®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated. See WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).
Finally, many UDRP decisions have also confirmed the Complainant’s rights such as:
- CAC Case No. 102278, BOURSORAMA v. yvette cristofoli, <boursorama-ecopret.com>;
- CAC Case No. 101844, BOURSORAMA SA v. likid french, <client-boursorama.net>; and
- CAC Case No. 101629, BOURSORAMA SA v. MOHAMED le petit, <m-clients-boursorama.com>.
Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
According to the 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 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 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.
See for instance 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> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).”)
The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. 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.
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See for instance:
- Forum Case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees);
- WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc./Yariv Moshe ("Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use.").
Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.
|