Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-102031

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:

- the International trademark BOLLORE LOGISTICS® (Registration n°1025892) dated July 31, 2009;
- the domain name <bollorelogistics.com> which was registered on May 23, 2018.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

PART I

The Complainant, BOLLORE, as a company listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, is one of the 500 largest companies in the world and engaged in Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions sectors. The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark BOLLORE LOGISTICS. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Disputed Domain Name differs from the registered trademark of the Complainant by the deletion of a letter “S” and a space between two words.

PART II

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the Complainant has no relationship with Complainant's business and is not authorized or licensed to use the trademark BOLLORE LOGISTICS. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use. Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name is a typosquatted version of the registered international trademark BOLLORE LOGISTICS.

PART III

The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant alleges that, as is stated before, minor changes are not sufficient to vanish the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the registered international trademark. The Complainant also asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is widely-known and that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE LOGISTICS. Lastly, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to gain an higher amount of commercial profit since the Disputed Domain Name is actually a parking page with PPC (Pay-Per-Click) links and the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name would attract Internet users to be more clicked thanks to the well-known status of Complainant’s trademark.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

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 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).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In this context, the Panel also notes that the burden of proof is on the Complainant to make out its case and past UDRP panels have consistently said that a Complainant must show that all three elements of the Policy have been made out before any order can be made to transfer a domain name.

For the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, that:

A. The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and

C. The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements in turn.

A. IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

The Policy simply requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of registration of the BOLLORE LOGISTICS trademark.

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical with the Complainant’s BOLLORE LOGISTICS trademarks since the deletion of the letter “S” of the word “LOGISTICS” and the deletion of the space between two words of the trademark, which is actually obligatory in domain names, is not sufficient to vanish the similarity.

The Panel is of the opinion that the internet users will easily fall into false impression that the Disputed Domain Name is an official domain name of the Complainant. The Panel recognizes the Complainant's rights and concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademarks. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is provided.

B. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

It is open to a Respondent to establish its rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the use or making demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent of the dispute (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent of the dispute is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without an intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Thus, if the Respondent proves any of these elements or indeed anything else that shows that it has a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant will have failed to discharge its burden of proof and the Complaint will fail. The burden is on the Complainant to demonstrate a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Once the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, then the Respondent may, inter alia, by showing one of the above circumstances, demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, and is not commonly known under the Disputed Domain Name.

In the absence of a response, the Panel accepts the Complainant's allegations as true that the Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks in the Disputed Domain Name. Hence, as the Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and as the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests as illustrated under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, nor has the Panel found any other basis for finding any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. BAD FAITH

The Panel concludes that the Complainant's BOLLORE LOGISTICS trademark has a significant reputation and is of distinctive character. Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that due to the earlier rights of the Complainant in the BOLLORE LOGISTICS trademark and the associated domain names, the Respondent, was aware of the Complainant and its trademarks at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name (see e.g., Ebay Inc. v. Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107). Referring to Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226, the Panel believes that the awareness of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name is to be considered an inference of bad faith registration.

In addition, when faced with lack of evidence of actual use of the Disputed Domain Dame, where the Respondent has clearly registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, where the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint or to any of multiple attempted communications and where the Respondent uses the Complainant’s entire trademark in an identical manner in the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that bad faith use can be inferred from the circumstances.

Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned circumstances in the present case, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant has established the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.