{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102254",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-12-10 09:21:04",
    "domain_names": [
        "bollcre.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOLLORE "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Milton Liqours lLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was founded in 1822. It holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines: Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions. It is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, the majority interest of the Group's stock is always controlled by the Bolloré family. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on November 30, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claimed that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in a fraudulent way and in this way managed to obtain an unlawful payments.\r\n\r\nSee for instance:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101390, BOLLORE v. Roy (“On the other hand, it is clear that the Complainant has rights in respect of the trademark BOLLORE, which is similar in many respects to the registered domain name <BOLL0RE.COM>.”);\r\n\r\n- FORUM Case No. 1807147, Bittrex Inc. v. Kathryn Bates (“The Panel agrees that misspellings, such as the substitution of a letter, do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's BITTREX trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”);\r\n\r\n- FORUM case No. FA 970871, Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees);\r\n\r\n - WIPO Case No. D2007-1695, Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe (\"Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use.\").\r\n\r\n\r\nPast panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE® in the following cases:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john (“the Panel takes note, again, of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's brand and the intention that must be presumed to exist in registering a domain name bearing such confusing similarity with well-known brand name.”);\r\n\r\n- CAC 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\r\nSee for instance CAC Case No. 101990, JCDECAUX SA v. Gemma Purnell <jcdeceux.com> (“Furthermore, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain name is a typical case of typosquatting which in turn is a strong indicator of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.”).\r\n\r\nSee WIPO Case No. Case No. D2017-2003, Association des Centres Distributeurs E. Leclerc - A.C.D Lec v. Milen Radumilo (“The Panel takes the view that the redirection of the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's LECLERC trademark, by means of a typical typo-squatting to a generic PPC website in order to generate pay-per-click revenues without Complainant's permission to do so, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's LECLERC trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and 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).  ",
    "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": [
        "Massimo Cimoli"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-01-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant owns several trademarks including the term “BOLLORE”, such as the international trademark registration BOLLORE Reg. No. 704697 registered on December 11, 1998. However having chosen the Registrar’s Jurisdiction the Complainant should have indicated those International Registrations that cover USA (being the Registrar’s Jurisdiction the US Jurisdiction).\r\n\r\nWhile checking the International Registrations indicated in the Compliant, the Panel has also discovered other International registrations regarding different BALLORE composed trademarks that, in spite the fact that they were not included in the Complainant, cover the US Jurisdiction. They are the following: Int Reg. Nos 1025892; 1302823;1008325 and 1302822.\r\n\r\nBesides the trademark registrations the Complainant has previous domain names comprising BOLLORE, its trade name Bollore and its trademark reputation was rightly claimed by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has chosen not to join the proceeding and therefore has lost its chance to challenge the Complainant's argument and evidence.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOLLCRE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}