{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103108", "time_of_filling": "2020-06-12 09:56:55", "domain_names": [ "login-boursorama.site" ], "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "A.M.D Corp" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a pioneer and leader in online brokerage, provision of financial information on the Internet and online banking. It states that it was founded in 1995 with the advent of the web and since then has continued to innovate in order to meet the new banking expectations of the French in terms of autonomy, simplicity and savings. It also states that its web portal “www.boursorama.com” is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA and a number of domain names, including the wording BOURSORAMA. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on June 6th, 2020 and resolves to a Registrar parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA and its domain names associated. The disputed domain name includes in its entirety the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the generic term “LOGIN” is in the view of Complainant not sufficient to escape the finding that the 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. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the new GTLD “.SITE” 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\nThus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nIn the view of Complainant, the 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 contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that 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\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nFinally, it is in the view of Complainant reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nBesides, the Complainant uses the domain name to provide its customers information regarding its services.\r\n\r\nFinally, all the Google results for a search of the terms “LOGIN BOURSORAMA” refers to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademark for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\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": [ "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-07-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA, such as the European trademark n° 1758614 registered since 2001-10-19.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name , registered since 1998-03-01 and registered since 2005-05-26.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "LOGIN-BOURSORAMA.SITE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }