1. The Panel finds that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s figurative trademark BOLLORÉ as it includes the dominant part of the Complainant’s trademark, constituted by the denominative element “bollore”, with the mere deletion of an accent and the addition of the two letters “us”, the number “1” and the Top-Level domain “.com”. As stated in a number of prior decisions rendered under the UDRP, these minor changes are not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion.
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, which has moreover hidden its identity in the WhoIs records through a privacy service before the filing of the Complaint, might have been commonly known by the Disputed domain name or by a name corresponding to the Disputed domain name. According to the evidence on records, the Respondent has simply passively held the Disputed domain name and has not submitted any evidence showing that it made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed domain name 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 name. 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 the 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 name is confusingly similar, and of the prior registration and use of the trademark BOLLORÉ by the Complainant, including in the Respondent’s country, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the Disputed domain names.
The Disputed domain name has not been used in connection with an active web site, i.e. has 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.
|