PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
The Complainant claims rights in the BOURSORAMA registered trademark and service mark established by its ownership of European Trade Mark described below and alleges that the disputed domain name <boursorama.one> is identical to its said registered mark.
The Complainant contends that the BOURSORAMA mark is included in its entirety, without any addition or deletion and adds that the addition of the suffix “.ONE” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and 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.”); 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 Complainant next alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name domain name, arguing 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. See 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 Complainant adds that the Respondent is not known to the Complainant and is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, nor does the Complainant carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
The Complainant further asserts that it has granted neither license nor authorization to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s registered trademark BOURSORAMA, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not made any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and argues that therefore the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. In support of this assertion the Complainant refers to a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves annexed as an exhibit to the Complaint, the Complainant submits that it shows that the disputed domain name links to a message which states that the website is inaccessible. The Complainant submits that it follows that the disputed domain name is inactive.
The Complainant next argues that the disputed domain name which is identical to its BOURSAMA name and mark was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that since it was established in 1995, the Complainant has become well known for online banking in France with over 3,3 million customers. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.
It is contended that therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. See BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas CAC Case No. 101131, (“In the case at hand, the Respondent acted in bad faith especially because the Respondent, who has no connection with the well-known "BOURSORAMA" trademark, registered a domain name, which incorporates the well-known "BOURSORAMA" trademark and it is totally irrealistic to believe that the Respondent did not know the Complainant's trademark when registered the domain name <wwwboursorama.com>.”); Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, (“Given the circumstances of the case including the evidence on record of the longstanding of use of the Complainant's trademark, and the distinctive nature of the mark BOURSORAMA, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark.”)
Addressing the allegation that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and is inactive as shown in the screen capture of the website annexed to the Complaint. The Complainant argues that 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, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
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. See - Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
RESPONDENT:
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.
|