{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102604",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-07-31 09:25:28",
    "domain_names": [
        "bolloredelivery.icu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOLLORE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Flor Walden"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\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”. Please see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nPlease see FORUM Case No. FA 153545, Gardline Surveys Ltd v. Domain Finance Ltd. (\"The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.\").\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel, therefore, finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance:\r\n\r\n- FORUM Case No. FA 1363660, Better Existence with HIV v. AAA (“Even though the disputed domain name still resolves to Complainant’s own website, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in its own name fails to create any rights or legitimate interests in Respondent associated with the disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(ii).”);\r\n\r\n- FORUM Case No. FA 1337658, Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) . . .”).\r\n\r\nPast panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE® in the following cases:\r\n\r\n- CAC 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\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.”)\"; and\r\n\r\n- CAC 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 FORUM Case No. FA 1382148, Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <bolloredelivery.icu> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOLLORE®. The Complainant contends that the addition of the term “DELIVERY” (which refers to the Complainant subsidiary, BOLLORE LOGISTICS, specialised in transport and logistics) does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the addition of the new gTLD “.ICU” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOLLORE®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated. \r\n\r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <bolloredelivery.icu> and it is not affiliated with nor authorized by BOLLORE in any way. 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 trademarks, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. In addition, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name redirects to BOLLORE LOGISTICS' official website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it. \r\n\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bolloredelivery.icu> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOLLORE® which is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark BOLLORE® in the cases listed above.\r\n\r\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name redirects to BOLLORE LOGISTICS' official website. Thus, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark. The Complainant asserts that this use is by itself an evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent in an effort to take advantage of the good reputation Complainant had built up in its trademarks, with the sole aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.  ",
    "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": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed. \r\n",
    "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": [
        "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-09-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "According to the Complainant, the BOLLORE group (the Complainant), founded in 1822, is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. \"Thanks to a diversification strategy based on innovation and international development, it now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines: Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions.\"\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of international trademark registration n° 704697 BOLLORE® (registered on December 11, 1998) as well as the figurative trademark registration n° 1302823 BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS® (registered on January 27, 2016), both trademarks predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name (July 11, 2019).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that it also owns and communicates through various domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOLLORE®, such as the domain name <bollore.com> registered on July 24, 1997.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOLLOREDELIVERY.ICU": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}