Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105228

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 grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online.

Pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, the Complainant based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency.

In France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 4 million customers. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.

The Complainant is the owner of the European trademark BOURSORAMA n°001758614 registered since 2001-10-19.

The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA®, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since 1998-03-01.

The disputed domain name <private-boursorama.com> was registered on February 20 , 2023 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links . Besides, MX servers are configured

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

COMPLAINANT: 

A. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <private-boursorama.com> is confusingly
similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA and its domain names associated. Indeed, the
domain name includes it in its entirety.

The Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term “PRIVATE” is not sufficient to escape the
finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSORAMA®. It is
well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark
may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (WIPO Case
No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall
impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOURSORAMA. It does not
prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its
trademark and its domain names associated.

B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name

The Complainant asserts 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. 

The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. 

C. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

The disputed domain name includes the well-known and distinctive trademark BOURSORAMA.

The Complainant refers to previous CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas (“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>.”).

Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links.

The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith. 

Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. 

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).

It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. Neither does the mere addition of generic terms like in this case "private". Therefor the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainants trademark BOURSORAMA.

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 contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use his trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

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).

Given the circumstances of the case, including the provided information of the use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA and the distinctive nature of this mark, 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.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

The disputed domain name currently resolves to an active website in form of a parking page with commercial links. The Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. 

Though no concrete examples of such use have been presented to this Panel, it seems likely that the MX records associated with the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes. It is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an email address. 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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.