{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101605",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-07-14 10:53:16",
    "domain_names": [
        "assitance-boursorama-banque.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "Kurtz Kurtz"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French company which was founded in 1995 and provides banking and financial services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant uses the domain names \"boursorama.com\" (registered on March 1st, 1998) and \"boursorama-banque.com\" (registered on May 26th, 2005) which are connected to official web sites of the Complainant as well as the domain names \"boursorama-banque.net\" (registered on November 23th 2005), \"boursoramabanque.com\" (registered on May 26th, 2005), \"boursorama.fr\" (registered on June 3th, 2005), \"boursorama-banque.fr\" (registered on May 27th, 2005) and \"clients-boursorama.com\" (registered on March 23th, 2017). \r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name \"assitance-boursorama-banque.com\" on July 3rd, 2017. On July 11th, 2017 the domain (in particular; the subdomain \"srv2.\" followed by the disputed second level domain name) pointed to a highly similar content of the Complainant's official account client's connection webpage. By now the disputed domain name is in passive holding (parking page). It is used to display several commercial links. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way, and has no right nor legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way to its business. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant assumes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks. The Complainant also states, that the addition of the generic term \"assitance\" - being a typosquatting of the term \"assistance\" - and \"banque\" between the trademark \"BOURSORAMA\" separated by hyphens and the use of the gTLD suffix \".com\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. \r\n\r\nFurthermore the Complainant assumes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and has used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users on its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. He also assumes that the aim of the registration and use of the disputed domain name was to grab banking information of the Complainant's customers. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Respondent did not provide any Response to the Complaint.",
    "rights": "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).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).",
    "bad_faith": "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).",
    "procedural_factors": "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 even as the ADR Provider (CAC) addressed the written notice of the Complaint to “Kurz Kurz” instead to “Kurtz Kurtz” as stated in the WHOIS Data and the Registrar verification. But this typo is irrelevant for the unsuccessful delivery attempt of the written notice of the Complaint as the handwritten comment of the mailman on the envelope states that the house number “56” does not exist in the street the Respondent indicated upon registration of the disputed domain name. It is reasonable to assume that the Respondent filled in a false address, especially when considering that a name and surname “Kurtz Kurtz” is not common in Germany.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Prof. Dr. Lambert Grosskopf, LL.M.Eur."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-08-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of different trademarks consisting in whole or in part of the word \"BOURSORAMA\", notably: \r\n\r\n- \tCommunity Trade Mark (no. 001758614), registered under classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 with a priority date as of July 13th, 2000;\r\n\r\n- \tFrench trademark (no. 98723359), registered under classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 with a priority date as of March 13th, 1998;\r\n\r\n- \tCombined French trademark (no. 3676762), registered under classes 35, 36, 38 with a priority date as of September 16th, 2009;\r\n\r\n- \tCombined French trademark (no. 3370460), registered under classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 41 with a priority date as of July 13th, 2005. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ASSITANCE-BOURSORAMA-BANQUE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}