Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108329

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 is the owner of the international trademark BOURSORAMA n° 1758614 registered since July 13, 2000 EUIPO (European Union).

BOURSORAMA (-the Complainant") states that it has “grow[n] in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online. It is a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, namely online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, BOURSORAMA based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency. In France, BOURSORAMA is the online banking reference with nearly 8 million customers

COMPLAINT

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. It states in particular that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <boursorama.cloud> on January 14, 2026 and that it resolves to a registrar page. Further, Complainant has no business relationship with Respondent, it has not licensed the right or authorized Respondent to register and use its trademark. It is evident from Respondent‘s use of the disputed domain name that the purpose for its registration is to target Complainant.

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix ".CLOUD" 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.   

RESPONDENT:

The Respondent has not appeared formally or informally to controvert the evidence submitted by the Complainant.

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(a) of the Rules for the UDRP ('the Policy') instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Pursuant to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(i) the domain name registered by respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and

(ii) respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; an

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

In view of the Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations and adduced proof pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint and annexes as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (FORUM July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (WIPO February 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all [reasonable] allegations of the Complaint.").

1. Identical or Confusingly Similar to a Mark in which Complainant has a Right:

To succeed under the first element, a complainant must pass a two-part test by first establishing that it has rights, and if it does it must then show that the disputed domain name is either identical or confusingly similar to the mark. The first element of a UDRP complaint “serves essentially as a standing requirement.” The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Here, the Complainant has established that it has rights in the word mark BOURSORAMA by providing the Panel with evidence that it has a registration mark for that term. The consensus view which the Panel adopts is that a national or an international trademark registration is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that it has a right in the word mark BOURSORAMA.

The second part of the test calls for comparing the Complainant’s mark with the disputed domain name. It entails “a straightforward visual or aural comparison of the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name. In cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark." WIPO Overview 3.0, supra.  

The Panel observes that at the second level, the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s mark. With regard to the top level, the Complainant contends that "CLOUD" 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. See WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. ("It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as ".com", ".org" or "net" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.").

Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

2. Determining Whether Respondent Lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

To establish the second of the three elements, the Complainant must first demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Recognizing that the proof for establishing this element is under the Respondent's control, the Complainant's may satisfy this burden by offering a prima facie case based on such concrete, circumstantial, or presumptive evidence as there is thus shifting the burden to the Respondent to produce evidence to overcome the presumption that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it did not authorize the Respondent to register the disputed domain name, the Respondent is not using the domain name for any bona fide use, nor can it claim to be known by the name "BOURSORAMA" as it has been identified in the Whois directory as Dalim Dedum.

Further, the Complainant has adduced evidence based on the use of the disputed domain name that Respondent is not using it for any non-commercial or fair use. See Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 (the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy). See also Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum November 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

Here, the Complainant's contentions satisfy the presumptive burden that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. A respondent has the opportunity to controvert the prima facie case by adducing evidence demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests.

The Policy sets forth the following nonexclusive list of factors:

(i) "[B]efore any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or 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."

(ii) "[Y]ou (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights."

(iii) "[Y]ou are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."

Evidence of any one of these defences will satisfy a respondent’s rebuttal burden, but the absence of any evidence supports a complainant's contention that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The failure of a party to submit evidence on facts in its possession and under its control may permit the Panel to draw an adverse inference regarding those facts. See Mary-Lynn Mondich and American Vintage Wine Biscuits, Inc. v. Shane Brown, doing business as Big Daddy's Antiques, WIPO Case No. D2000-­0004; also Forum Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket/JM Consultants ("The Panel finds that Respondent's lack of content at the disputed domain shows the lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy if 4(c)(i) and (iii)."). 

Here, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark and resolves to a Registrar’s page. Where the “only apparent purpose would be to [draw] users seeking Complainant’s web site” its impersonation of the Complainant is evident. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble /golden globals, Forum Claim No. FA 1787128 ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

As the Respondent has not controverted the evidence that it lacks right or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and for the reasons herein stated, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

3. Registration and Use in Bad faith:

Having demonstrated that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, it is the Complainant's further burden under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy to prove that the Respondent both registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is not sufficient for a complainant to rest its case on the finding under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, although the fact that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name will be a factor in assessing its motivation for registering a domain name in which the dominant part is identical to Complainant's mark.

In this case, the Respondent has registered a domain name identical to the Complainant’s mark and the Top Level Domain “CLOUD” that can be taken as an extension associated with the Complainant, as much of banking activity is conducted, as it were, “in the cloud.” Taken as a whole the disputed domain name is designed to attract Internet visitors seeking to access their accounts held by Complainant. Preying on Internet user in the matter in which Complainant has demonstrated is a quintessential abuse of Complainant’s right and of the Policy.

The preamble to Paragraph 4(b) states: "For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) [the finding of any of the circumstances] shall be evidence of the registration [...] of a domain name in bad faith." In the absence of a respondent to explain and justify its registration and use of a domain name corresponding to a famous or well-known mark, a Panel is compelled to examine the limited record for any exonerative evidence of good faith. The Respondent has not appeared and based on the evidence of record; the Panel finds none.

The Complainant's proof in this case focuses the Panel's attention on the fourth factor. As there is no proof that would support the other factors, the Panel will not address them. Subparagraph 4(b)(iv)   reads:   

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.

The Complainant shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar page. See 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 unrealistic to believe that the Respondent did not know the Complainant's trademark when registered the domain name <boursorama.cloud>."); WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas ("Given the circumstances of the case including the evidence on record of the longstanding of use of the Complainant's trademark, and the distinctive nature of the mark BOURSORAMA, 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."); and Sodexo v. Daniela Ortiz, D2021-0628 (WIPO May 3, 2021) (Holding, “Where a complainant’s trademark is widely known, including in a particular industry, or highly specific, and respondents cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of complainant, panels have inferred that respondents knew, or should have known, that their registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark”).

Moreover, as the Complainant points out, the disputed domain name redirects the Registrar parking page. Beyond this, the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and 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 unlawful in pretending to be the Complainant.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Claim No. D2000-0003 namely that if “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” complainant is entitled to its remedy.

For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has adduced more than sufficient evidence that the Respondent has appropriated a well-known mark to serve an infringing and fraudulent purpose. See Royal Bank of Canada - Banque Royale Du Canada v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Randy Cass, WIPO Case No. D2019-2803, the Panel noted: "It is clear that where the facts of the case establish that the respondent's intent in registering or acquiring a domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant's [...] trademark, panels have been prepared to find the respondent acted in bad faith."

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, thus it has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.