Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105816

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

In these proceedings, the Complainant relies on the following trademark:Bolloré (device), International Registration No. 704697, filed on December 11, 1998, in the name of BOLLORE SE (the Complainant), duly renewed.   It is worth noting that, the Complainant owns many other trademarks in various countries (including the U.S.A., where the Respondent is apparently located), which have not been cited in these proceedings.

The Complainant is a French-based, multinational, family-owned group of companies, founded in 1822 and active in three main fields: Transportation and Logistics, Communication, Industry. Ever since, the Complainant has become a very large enterprise with activities all around the world and thousands of employees.The Complainant owns a fair-sized portfolio of trademarks including the wording "BOLLORE", among which an international registration dating back to 1998. It also owns a multitude of related domain names, like <bollore.com> since July 25, 1997.The Disputed domain name <BOLLOFE.COM> was registered on September 18, 2023 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar.

 COMPLAINANT:  The Complainant contends that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOLLORE trademark, as it is a misspelling of this wholly incorporated trademark. This last element is sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Indeed, the mere misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark does not change the overall impression of a most likely connection with the trademark BOLLORE of the Complainant. As to the gTLD “.com”, the Complainant suggests that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed domain name because the Complainant is not affiliated with nor has it ever authorised the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name, the Complainant has never licensed its trademark to the Respondent, and because the Disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website since its registration. According to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the BOLLORE trademark, the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark in an intentionally designed way with the aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, and this is evidence of the fact that the Disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.With respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has used the domain name as a parking page with commercial links, which is considered as a clear indication of bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has attempted to attract users to his own website, thanks to the Complainant’s trademark’s reputation. For all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 Disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's whole trademark (BOLLORE), written in a misspelled way. The mere exchange of the letter “R” with the letter “F” in the Disputed domain name is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. This is a clear case of typosquatting.As far as the gTLD ".com" is concerned, it is generally recognized that top level domains do not have any bearing in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity, according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.Hence, the Panel is satisfied that the first requirement under the Policy is met.

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). Since proving a negative fact is almost impossible, panelists in UDRP proceedings have generally agreed that it is sufficient for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent.In the case at issue, the Complainant argued that it had never authorised the Respondent to register the BOLLORE trademark in a domain name, and that it had never licensed its trademark to the Respondent. Furthermore, the Disputed domain name resolves to a parking website with third-party commercial links and therefore the Respondent cannot demonstrate any use of the Disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed domain name.Finally, there is no other evidence in the case file that could demonstrate that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed domain name. In view of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order to rebut the Complainant's arguments, the Respondent had the possibility to make his own defense. However, the Respondent has chosen not to file a Response.Therefore the Panel is satisfied that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.

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).As far as registration in bad faith is concerned, given the reputation of the Complainant's trademark and the fact that the Disputed domain name fully incorporates this trademark (even in a misspelled way), it is quite evident that, at the time of the registration of the Disputed domain name, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's trademark. The registration as domain name of a third party's well-known trademark with full knowledge of the fact that the rights over this trademark belong to a third party amounts to registration in bad faith.With respect to use in bad faith, the Disputed domain name resolves to a parking website with commercial links. Such fraudulent use of a domain name can amount to use in bad faith in some circumstances, such as when the complainant’s trademark has such a strong reputation that it is widely known, and when it is impossible to conceive any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate. This fact is to be combined with the full incorporation of the Complainant’s reputable trademark in the disputed domain name. These are exactly the circumstances that apply in the case at issue. The trademark BOLLORE enjoys wide and extensive reputation. Thus, it is impossible to conceive any plausible active use of the Disputed domain name that would be legitimate. This conclusion is further reinforced by the fraudulent creation of MX servers by the Respondent.Therefore the Panel finds it clear that the Disputed domain name was used in bad faith.For all circumstances mentioned above, the Panel is satisfied that also the third requirement under the Policy is satisfied.

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.

The Disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark, written in a misspelled way. The Disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.The Respondent was not authorised to include the Complainant's trademark in the Disputed domain name, and the Complainant never licensed its trademarks to the Respondent. The Respondent is not using the Disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Respondent registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's well-known trademark. His use of the Disputed domain name as a parking website with commercial links is in bad faith, as there is no conceivable use of the Disputed domain name that could amount to a legitimate use.