{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102044", "time_of_filling": "2018-06-08 10:19:21", "domain_names": [ "bollorecoal.com" ], "case_administrator": "Sandra Lanczová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOLLORE" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Ethan Wilson" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance CAC Case n° 101402, CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. William Philippe (“the addition of the term is only a minor variation and therefore not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names and from the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE; the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE constitutes the dominant component of the disputed domain names.”)\r\n\r\nBesides, it is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Please see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE® is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE® in the following cases:\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 101498, BOLLORE SA v. Naquan Riddick (“The Respondent registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's well-known trademark.”);\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 101696, BOLLORE v. Hubert Dadoun (“As the Complainant is also one of the largest 500 companies in the world, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that their trademark has a strong reputation and is in fact to be considered well-known.”)\";\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 101494, BOLLORE SA v. Dillan Dee Jackson (“the Panel finds that, in light of the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, with which the Disputed domain name is confusingly similar, and of the prior registration and use of the trademark BOLLORÉ by the Complainant, including in the Respondent’s country, the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the Disputed domain names.”).\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance FORUM Case No. FA 744444, Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler (“finding bad faith where the respondent was “well-aware” of the complainant’s YAHOO! mark at the time of registration.”)\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance FORUM Case No. FA 1762308, LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, (“Complainant claims Respondent’s use of the domain name to offer competing loan services is likely to further such confusion.”)", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other proceedings, pending or decided, which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a company domiciled in France that is part of the BOLLORÉ group of companies founded in 1822, nowadays active, inter alia, in the electricity storage industry. The Complainant is one of the 500 largest companies in the world with presences in 46 countries worldwide. The Complainant communicates on the Internet mainly through its website at “www.bollore.com” (with the domain name registered back in 1997).\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademark as it includes the latter in its entirety with the mere addition of the term “coal” which does not change the overall impression of the designation “Bollore” been connected to the Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademark. The Complainant, furthermore, argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, neither by granting a license nor by authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademark or to apply for registration of domain names including the designation “Bollore”, (2) the Respondent still chose to headline its website under the disputed domain name by “BOLLORE IMPORT EXPORT PTY LTD” and, thereby, created a likelihood of confusion in the Internet users’ mind making them believing the Respondent is in fact affiliated with the Complainant, in particular with the Complainant’s South African subsidiary BOLLORÉ AFRICA LOGISTICS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD, which is not the case, (3) several paragraphs on the website under the disputed domain name have been directly copied from the website of the Complainant’s competitor MATURI INTERNATION CO., LTD. under “www.charcoalmarket.com”. Finally, the Complainant states that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademark is well-known and distinctive and it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights therein, (2) several paragraphs on the website under the disputed domain name have been directly copied from the website of the Complainant’s competitor MATURI INTERNATION CO., LTD. under “www.charcoalmarket.com”, which is a clear attempt by the Respondent to defraud Internet users for its own profit as the Respondent pretends to be a charcoal reseller which it is not.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNONE.", "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.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Stephanie G. Hartung, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-07-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has evidenced to be the owner of the following International (IR) trademark registration:\r\n\r\n- Word-\/device mark BOLLORÉ, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Registration No.: 704697, Registration Date: December 11, 1998, Status: Active, with protection for numerous countries worldwide.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOLLORECOAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }