Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108282

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 owns the following trademark registrations:

i. “BOLLORE”, international trademark reg. no. 704697; 

ii. "BOLLORE LOGISTICS", international trademark reg. no. 1025892; 

iii. "BOLLORE LOGISTICS", international trademark reg. no. 1302823. 

The Complainant also owns the domain name <bollore.com>, registered on July 25, 1997.

The BOLLORE group (the Complainant) was founded in 1822 and is active in  three business lines: Transportation and Logistics, Communication, and Industry.

The disputed domain name <bollore-logistique.com> was registered on December 19, 2025 and it resolves to a parking page.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
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.

1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's prior trademarks. In particular the disputed domain name is almost identical to the prior trademark "BOLLORE LOGISTICS®" (i.e. LOGISTIQUE is the french translation for LOGISTICS). According to a consolidated case law if the trademark is entirely comprised in the disputed domain name, the threshold requested by the First element of the Policy is met. 

Furthermore, the addition of the ".com" gTLD is generally disregarded for assessing confusing similarity in view of its technical function.

As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.

2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. Therefore, it has filed no information on possible rights or legitimate interests it might hold on the domain name <bollore-logistique.com>. On its part, the Complainant has submitted information and arguments which, according to the Panel, are sufficient to conclude that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

According to the information provided by the Complainant, and not contested, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has he been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. Additionally, the information included in the WHOIS does not confer a right or legitimate interest in registering the disputed domain name.

The Panel agrees that the use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services nor to a legitimate non-commercial use for the purpose of the Policy. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a parking page. The Panel agrees that such use proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.

3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In the Panel's view, the Respondent was aware that the Complainant conducted its business under the BOLLORE and BOLLORE LOGISTICS trademarks as:

i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant's trademark registrations;

ii) the BOLLORE trademark has a strong reputation and is in fact, to be considered well-known;

iii) the disputed domain name combines BOLLORE with the French word "LOGISTIQUE" ("logistics" in english) and this is a clear reference to the Complainant's business.

As regards use in bad faith, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. Given the reputation and distinctiveness of the BOLLORE trademark, and in the absence of any other explanation by the Respondent, the Panel agrees that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.

All the above considered, the Panel takes the view that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.