{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102340",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-02-05 13:13:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "boursorama-clients.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Céline Levy"
    ],
    "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. Pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet 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 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 also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA®, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998 and <clients-boursorama.com> registered since March 23, 2017.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on January 29, 2019.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is not used by the Respondent.    ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nI. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA® as it includes in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe addition of a hyphen and the generic term “CLIENTS” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSORAMA®. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. \r\n\r\nIt 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”. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOURSORAMA ® of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. \r\n\r\nThus, the disputed domain name <boursorama-clients.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BOURSORAMA®.\r\n\r\nII. Once a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nPast panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WhoIs information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither 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.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain nameis not used in which is insufficient to show a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIII. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark BOURSORAMA®. \r\n\r\nTherefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has knowledge of the Complainant’s rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, which is a hallmark of bad faith. \r\n\r\nFurther, the Respondent has not demonstrated a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use in respect of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s 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.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: \r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response was filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain nameis 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 namehas 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 the Decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner the European trademark n° 1758614 for “BOURSORAMA” from October 19, 2001.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSORAMA-CLIENTS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}