{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102999", "time_of_filling": "2020-04-06 11:28:45", "domain_names": [ "boilore.com" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOLLORE " ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Julie Dusenberry" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, BOLLORE, as a company listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, is one of the 500 largest companies in the world and engaged in transportation and logistics, communication and media, electricity storage and solutions sectors.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds the international trademark registration for “BOLLORE” (registration n°704697) and the Complainant also holds domain names bearing “BOLLORE” such as registration dated July 24, 1997.\r\n\r\nOn March 30, 2020, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name . The domain name is currently inactive.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a leading company mainly controlled by the Bolloré family and specialized in different sectors such as transportation and logistics, communication and media, electricity storage and solutions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds international trademark registration for the trademark “BOLLORE” and also is the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “BOLLORE” such as .\r\n\r\n1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “BOLLORE” as both of them are composed of seven letters and six of those letters are identical and placed in the same order. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that substitution of the letter “L” by the letter “I” in the disputed domain name is a clear example of typo-squatting, where the disputed domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9.: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant alleges that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “BOLLORE”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier Panel decision WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.\r\nThe Complainant states that prior Panel decisions have accepted the Complainant’s rights such as:\r\n- CAC Case No. 102675, Bollore v. Bill Brown Construction Co ;\r\n- CAC Case No. 102254, Bollore v. Milton Liqours ILC ;\r\n- CAC Case No. 101974, Bollore v. Adileo Barone .\r\n\r\n2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The past panel decisions e.g. 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\nThe Complainant also alleges that the Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name since the Respondent has no relationship with BOLLORE. In fact, the Respondent and the Complainant do not carry out any activity or business together.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “BOLLORE” or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is a typo-squatted version of the Complainant’s trademark. Thus, the Complainant argues that the typo-squatting is being used to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and typo-squatting may demonstrate the lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier Panel decision Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group. (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent did never use the disputed domain name since its registration and it demonstrates the lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the “BOLLORE” is a widely known trademark and its notoriety has been accepted within the earlier decisions such as CAC 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.”) and 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.”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that taking into account the distinctive character and the well-known status of the “BOLLORE” trademark; the Respondent was aware of such trademark while registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is created by the substitution of the letter “L” by the letter “I” which is an example of typo-squatting and does not eliminate the confusingly similarity. Further, the Respondent has intentionally used the typo-squatting to create a domain name that is similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that prior Panel decisions have accepted the bad faith of the Respondent in similar cases such as Forum Case No. 157321, Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Bennie Hu (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name that differs from Complainant’s mark by only one letter indicates “typosquatting”, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use.”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the bad faith of the Respondent is supported within the fact that the disputed domain name is inactive and the Respondent never used the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-05-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the IR trademark BOLLORE (Registration n°704697).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “BOLLORE” such as registration dated July 24, 1997.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOILORE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }