{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102794", "time_of_filling": "2019-12-03 12:00:35", "domain_names": [ "boillore.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOLLORE " ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Elsie D Smith" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Bolloré group, which is one of the 500 largest companies in the world, was founded in 1822. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is listed on the Paris Stock Exchange and that it holds strong positions in Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that the majority interest of the group's stock is controlled by the Bolloré family. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the group also manages a number of financial assets including plantations and financial investments. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is the owner of several international trademarks containing the word “BOLLORE”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it is also the owner of number of domain names that contain the distinctive word “BOLLORE”, including the domain name , registered on July 24, 1997. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the disputed domain name refers to a page displaying the message \"Index of\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the disputed domain name includes the Complainant's trademark in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that addition of the letter “I” in the trademark does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the addition of the letter \"i\" is a clear case of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the top-level domain “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that it is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest and, once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant adds that 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 argues that the Respondent is not known as \"Boillore\", but has a completely different name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by it in any way. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it has never authorized the Respondent to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on behalf of the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of its trademark and that typosquatting could be considered as evidence of lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as a credit controller of one of the Complainant’s subsidiaries, in order to receive undue payment.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that, as noted by other panels, its trademark is distinctive and well-known.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalls that the Respondent has used the domain name in a phishing scheme.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of Complainant's rights in its trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the misspelling of its trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that 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": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-01-19 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant of the international trademark registration No. 704697, “Bolloré”, registered on December 11, 1998, for goods and services in classes 16, 17, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on November 11, 2019.", "decision_domains": { "BOILLORE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }