{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102170",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-09-20 10:23:59",
    "domain_names": [
        "boursoarma.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Boursorama SA "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "johnny legend"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFounded in 1995, BOURSORAMA S.A. (the Complainant) grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online.\r\n\r\nPioneer and leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, online financial information and online banking, BOURSORAMA S.A. based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency.\r\n\r\nIn France, BOURSORAMA is the online banking reference with more than 1,500,000 customers. Its website has more than 30 million monthly visits.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA®, in particular the European trademark BOURSORAMA® n°001758614 registered since October 19, 2001. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA®, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boursoarma.com> was registered on September 13, 2018.\r\n\r\nThe website in relation with the disputed domain name is a blank page displaying the message “Index of”.  ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "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).\r\n\r\nThis is thus a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark; BOURSOARMA instead of BOURSORAMA.\r\n\r\nPrevious panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusing similar to the complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nSimple exchange of letters is not a sufficient element to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademarks and domain names.  ",
    "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).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use its trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nNeither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive website since its registration.  ",
    "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).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the trademark and the content of the website, it is clear that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark.\r\n\r\nAll these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites.  ",
    "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": [
        "Dr. Vít Horáček"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-10-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The reputation of the Complainant's trademarks and domain names is self-evident and proved by:\r\n\r\n- Complainant's trademark:\r\n- the European trademark BOURSORAMA® n°001758614 registered since October 19, 2001;\r\n\r\n- Complainant's domain name:\r\n<boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998\r\n\r\nFurthermore Complainant's trademarks extensively registered around the world.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSOARMA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}