{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102913",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-02-12 09:45:15",
    "domain_names": [
        "bollorelogistic.com",
        "bolloreusa.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOLLORE "
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "FTS, LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a Company Group, founded 1822, based in France and with commercial activities in Europe, U.S. and other continents. Its subsidiary BOLLORE LOGISTICS is one of the 10 leading worldwide groups in transport organization and logistics. With a presence on the five continents, 609 agencies in 107 countries and more than 20.600 employees.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an U.S. Company. A few month ago the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed the Complaint against the Respondent claiming that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without rights or legitimate interest and in bad faith. Therefore the registration should be declared abusive and the two disputed domain names transferred to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn detail the Complainant remarked:\r\n\r\nCAC Case No. 102031, BOLLORE v. Donald Shillam <bollorelogitics.com> (“The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical with the Complainant’s BOLLORE LOGISTICS trademarks since the deletion of the letter “S” of the word “LOGISTICS” and the deletion of the space between two words of the trademark, which is actually obligatory in domain names, is not sufficient to vanish the similarity.”).\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”. WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nForum 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\nForum Case No. FA 1654759, Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik (“Previous panels have found such use by a respondent, whether to run a phishing scheme or to run a competing website, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”); and \r\n\r\nForum Case No. FA 1796494, Bittrex, Inc. v. Monty Rj \/ Media Hub (“Complainant demonstrates that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolves to a website that purports to offer cryptocurrency services, in competition with Complainant. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy §§ 4(c)(ii) or (iv).”).\r\n\r\nPast panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks in the following cases:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john (“the Panel takes note, again, of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's brand [BOLLORE] and the intention that must be presumed to exist in registering a domain name bearing such confusing similarity with well-known brand name.”); and\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102031, BOLLORE v. Donald Shillam (“The Panel concludes that the Complainant's BOLLORE LOGISTICS trademark has a significant reputation and is of distinctive character.”).\r\n\r\nForum Case No. FA 1796494, Bittrex, Inc. v. Monty Rj \/ Media Hub (“Use of a disputed domain name to offer competing goods or services demonstrates bad faith under Policy § 4(b)(iv).”);\r\n\r\nForum Case No. FA 1795426, Bed Bath & Beyond Procurement Co. Inc. n\/k\/a Liberty Procurement Co. Inc. v. Fermon Broome \/ Broome International Consortium LLC (“Use of a domain name to disrupt complainant’s business by diverting internet users to a webpage which offers goods and services that compete directly with those offered by complainant may be evidence of bad faith under Policy §§ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).”); and\r\n\r\nForum Case No. FA 1612750, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. Yens BaoHu YiKaiQi (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy § 4(b)(iv).”).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other proceedings related to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [
        "Dr. jur. Harald von Herget"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-03-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant registered figurative trademarks, bollore IR 704697 registered since 1998-12-11 and bollore logistics IR 1302823 registered since January 27, 2016. Both trademarks are active and were registered before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provided evidence that he registered a domain name containing the name “bollore“ with the TLD .com, well before the Respondent registered the two disputed domain names. Further the Complainant provided evidence that he provides a website www.bollore.com.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOLLORELOGISTIC.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "BOLLOREUSA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}