{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102278", "time_of_filling": "2018-12-27 11:00:48", "domain_names": [ "boursorama-ecopret.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "yvette cristofoli" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it has been founded in 1995 and is the pioneer and the leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. In France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 1,5 million customers. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA and includes in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the generic term “ECOPRET” (which can be translated as “ECOLOAN”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated. On the contrary, the addition of the French term “ECOPRET” increases the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and activity, because “ECOPRET” refers to the Complainant activity, as this term is used as a designation for a financial measure taken by the French government plan for energy efficiency.\r\n\r\nThe addition of a generic term associated to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity (WIPO Case No. D2016-0239, LEGO Juris A\/S v. Viktor Tkachev, Lego Town, ).\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the addition of the gTLD suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated (WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.).\r\n\r\nComplainant’s rights to BOURSORAMA trademark has been confirmed by many UDRP decisions (CAC Case No. 102211, BOURSORAMA v. Olga Pererva ; CAC Case No. 102017, OURSORAMA S.A. v. Morval Robert, ; - WIPO Case No. D2017-1360, BOURSORAMA S.A. v. Houndekponto Gaston, ).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license 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. Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to a registrar’s parking page. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the disputed domain name redirects to a registrar parking page and the Complainant contends that the Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name. Failure to make an active use of a disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other proceedings related 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\n\r\n", "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": [ "JUDr. Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-01-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the European trademark BOURSORAMA number 1758614 registered since December 19, 2001. The Complainant also owns domain names including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name , registered since March 1, 1998. The disputed domain name was registered on December 19, 2018 and redirects to a registrar’s parking page.", "decision_domains": { "BOURSORAMA-ECOPRET.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }