{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103000",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-04-06 11:29:01",
    "domain_names": [
        "bo11ore.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOLLORE SE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "clam off Rodziwicz"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE® is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE® in the following cases:\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john (“the Panel takes note, again, of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's brand and the intention that must be presumed to exist in registering a domain name bearing such confusing similarity with well-known brand name.”);\r\n-\tCAC 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.”)\".\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name redirects to commercial links. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use”). See also Google Inc. v. Mahmut Karaca \/ Karaca Grup Ltd. Sti., FA1682647 (Forum Jul. 25, 2016) (“Respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to its own website is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.”).\r\n\r\nBy using the disputed domain name in connection with landing pages providing pay-per-click links which promote third parties’ products and services, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for commercial gain as set out under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. It is well established that a respondent (as the registered owner of the domain name) is in general ultimately responsible for the information available at the website and for all content posted there, regardless of how and by whom such content was generated and regardless of who profits directly from the commercial use. Such use of a domain name can demonstrate a respondent’s bad faith per Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (“finding bad faith registration and use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting”); see also Fossil, Inc. v. wwwfossil-watch.org c\/o Hostmaster, Case No. FA 335513 (Forum Nov. 9, 2004) (“finding bad faith where respondent attempted to profit from the fame of complainant’s trademark by attracting internet traffic to his website”).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other proceedings, pending or decided, which 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": [
        "Stephanie G. Hartung, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-05-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has evidenced to be the owner of the following International (IR) trademark registration:\r\n\r\n- Word-\/device mark BOLLORÉ, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Registration No.: 704697, Registration Date: December 11, 1998, Status: active, with protection for numerous countries worldwide.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BO11ORE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}