The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOLLORE trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the BOLLORE trademark in its entirety. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark. Moreover, there also is consensus view among UDRP panels that the mere addition of descriptive or other terms, such as the name “Vincent” (which even directly refers to the Complainant’s CEO) is not capable to dispel the confusing similarity arising from such incorporation of the Complainant’s BOLLORE trademark in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).
Also, the Complainant contends, and the Respondent has not precisely objected to these contentions, that the Respondent has neither made use, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known thereunder. The Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s BOLLORE trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that the Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and the Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the terms “Vincent” and/or “Bollore” on its own. Moreover, the disputed domain name at least at some point before the filing of the Complaint redirected to a standard Pay-Per-Click (PPC) website with hyperlinks to a variety of third parties’ commercial websites. Many UDRP panels have found that the generation of PPC revenues by using a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark neither qualifies as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP. Accordingly, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of in the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary. The Panel has well noted the Respondent's contention that it purchased the disputed domain name as an investment because it was openly available. Arguing that way, the Respondent has, however, failed to refute that this investment builds on the Complainant's trademark's reputation and appears to exploit it in an unjustified manner. Against this background, the Panel has no difficulty in finding that the Respondent indeed has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.
The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. It is undisputed between the Parties that the Complainant’s BOLLORE trademark enjoys considerable recognition throughout the world; also, the way in which the disputed domain name has been set up (namely as a combination of the BOLLORE trademark together with the first name “Vincent” of the Complainant’s CEO) leaves little, if no doubt that the disputed domain name directly aims at targeting the Complainant’s BOLLORE trademark. Therefore, redirecting the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BOLLORE trademark to a typical PPC website which shows a variety of hyperlinks to active third parties’ websites for the obvious purpose of generating PPC revenues, is a clear indication that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s BOLLORE trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of this website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
Therefore, the Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii).
|