Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105192

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the BOLLORE marks.

The Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following trademark: 

International trademark registration no. 704697 “BOLLORE’”, granted on December 11, 1998.

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

The Complainant was founded in 1822.

The Complainant is one of the 500 largest companies in the world, and is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange.

The BOLLORE Group has 73,000 employees worldwide with a revenue of 19.771 million euro, operating income of 1.339 million euro and shareholders' equity in the amount of 34.418 million euro based on figures for 2021.

The Complainant also owns and communicates on the Internet through various domain names, the main one being <bollore.com>, registered on July 25, 1997.

The disputed domain name <bo1lore.com> was registered on February 7, 2023.
The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. 

COMPLAINANT:

The Complainant contends that:

1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bo1lore.com.com> is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademarks "BOLLORE”.
The Complainant further affirms that the disputed domain name represents a clear example of typosquatting.

 
2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business dealings with, the Respondent. 

3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant contends that owing to the distinctiveness and renown of the Complainant’s trademarks, it is it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name <bo1lore.com> without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BOLLORE trademark.

The Complainant further contends that the misspelling of the BOLLORE trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark, and that this is evidence of bad faith. 

In addition, the Complainant contends that the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, can be evidence of bad faith registration and use. 

Finally, the Complainant affirms that MX servers are configured for the disputed domain name and this suggests that the disputed domain name can be actively used for email purposes, and, quoting previous UDRP decisions, concludes that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address. 

RESPONDENT:

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.

A) Confusing similarity

The Panel agrees with the Complainant's assertions that slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the present case represents a clear case of typo-squatting.

B) Lack of legitimate rights or interests

The disputed domain name is a distinctive, non-descriptive name. It is unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without having the Complainant firmly in mind. The Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant are sufficient to constitute a prima facie demonstration of absence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The burden of evidence therefore shifts to the Respondent to show, using tangible evidence, that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so. 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C) Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant gives sound bases for its contention that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.

Firstly, owing to the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks, and so the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.

Secondly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s unchallenged assertion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the aim of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

Thirdly, the Panel agrees with the Complainant and previous panels that the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, can be evidence of bad faith registration and use. 

Fourthly, the disputed domain name appears to be a clear case of typosquatting.

Fifthly, noting that MX servers are configured for the disputed domain name, the Panel agrees that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.

Finally, the Respondent has not responded to nor denied any of the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding.