{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102865", "time_of_filling": "2020-01-20 10:01:11", "domain_names": [ "boursorama-banque.website" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Margaret" ], "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 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 (“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\nPlease see for instance:\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 noncommercial 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\nPlease see:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas (“In the case at hand, the Respondent acted in bad faith especially because the Respondent, who has no connection with the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark, registered a domain name, which incorporates the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark and it is totally irrealistic to believe that the Respondent did not know the Complainant's trademark when registered the domain name .”)\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas (“Given the circumstances of the case including the evidence on record of the longstanding of use of the Complainant's trademark, and the distinctive nature of the mark BOURSORAMA, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark.”)\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2018-0497, StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC (“In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”);\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. 1557007, Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN \/ DTAPLES.COM (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).\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 is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA. The Complainant contends that the addition of a hyphen and the generic term “BANQUE” 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. The disputed domain name includes in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the new gTLD “.WEBSITE” 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, its trademark, and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the 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\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 is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark BOURSORAMA. The Complainant further states that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant's activity.\r\n", "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.", "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": "2020-02-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Founded in 1995, BOURSORAMA (the Complainant), is one of the very first online financial platforms in Europe. One of the earliest of the emerging e-commerce providers, it enjoyed substantial growth due to its continuous expansion. It grew into a pioneer and market leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet, and online banking. Today in France, Boursorama is the leading online banking provider.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA, such as the European trademark n° 1758614 registered since 19 October 2001, predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name , registered since 1 March 1998 and registered since 26 May 2005.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 14 January 2020.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOURSORAMA-BANQUE.WEBSITE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }