{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101849",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-01-25 08:53:39",
    "domain_names": [
        "BOLLORE-1OGISTICS.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOLLORE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "jorge  villalva"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French business founded in 1822. It operates in 3 sectors: transport and logistics, communication and media, and electricity storage solutions. The Complainant is one of the top 500 largest companies globally and is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange. The majority of the business is controlled by the Balloré family. Balloré Logistics is in the top 10  transport and logistics businesses globally.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of a number of trade marks including the the BOLLORE LOGISTICS mark. In addition, it owns various domain names including <ballorelogistics.com> (registered on 20 January 2009). \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by 'Jorge Villalva' (the 'Respondent') on 16 January 2018 who at first used a privacy shield service offered by his registrar.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name <BOLLORE-1OGISTICS.COM>.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOLLORE LOGISTICS mark.\r\n\r\nThe only difference is the use of the number '1' instead of the letter 'L' at the beginning of the word LOGISTICS. The hyphen and the \".com\" aspect of the disputed domain name can be disregarded. This is therefore a clear case of 'typosquatting'. The Complainant refers to the following cases in support of the contention that slight spelling variations do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Belkin Components v Gallant, FA 97075 (Nat. Arb. Forum 29 May 2001) where the panel found <belken.com> confusingly similar to the complainant's BELKIN mark because the letter 'e' had replaced the letter 'i' in the complainant's mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as:\r\n- The Respondent is not licensed, authorised by or affiliated with the Complainant or its BOLLORE LOGISTICS mark. \r\n- The Complainant has no business connection with the Respondent.\r\n- Whilst the website attached to the disputed domain name points to an inactive page, the Respondent attempted to create a likelihood of confusion by using the disputed domain name to contact the Complainant by e-mail in relation to a payment.\r\n\r\nFinally, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as:\r\n- The registration of the disputed domain name containing a misspelling of the Complainant's mark indicates the Respondent intended to cause confusion. Typosquatting is a form of impersonation, and is not consistent with honest or fair or legitimate use.\r\n- The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of the financial side which the Complainant states was probably the basis of the fraudulent phishing attempt by the Respondent. \r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, being represented by Laurent Becker of Nameshield, filed its complaint in relation to the disputed domain name with the CAC on 25 January 2018.\r\n\r\nThe CAC then formally commenced proceedings on 26 January 2018 and notified the Respondent accordingly.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent failed to submit a response within the time frame required in this complaint, or at all, and a Notification of Respondent’s Default was therefore issued by the CAC on 26 February 2018.\r\n\r\nHaving received a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality, the Czech Arbitration Court appointed Steve Palmer, of Palmer Biggs Intellectual Property Solicitors, as the Panel in these UDRP proceedings. ",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Steve Palmer"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-03-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "BOLLORE (the 'Complainant') is the owner of a number of an International Trade Mark registration for BOLLORE LOGISTICS (protected in a number of territories) under number 1025892 in various classes dated 31 July 2009 ('the BOLLORE LOGISTICS mark').",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOLLORE-1OGISTICS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}