{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103167",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-07-17 09:32:18",
    "domain_names": [
        "bousorama-recover.link"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Claude  Adler"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French company founded in 1995, active and known in the financial field, namely in online banking, online brokerage and financial information on the Internet. Ever since, the Complainant has grown and acquired commercial presence in France and abroad, mainly through its portal www.boursorama.com.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a fair-sized portfolio of trademarks including the wording \"BOURSORAMA\", among which a French registration dating back to 1998. It also owns a multitude of related domain names, such as <boursorama.com> since March 1, 1998, and <boursorama-banque.com> since May 26, 2005.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <BOUSORAMA-RECOVER.LINK> was registered on July 1, 2020 by the Respondent (as confirmed by the Registrar).\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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOURSORAMA trademark, as it fully incorporates this trademark. This last element is sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Indeed, the mere addition of the generic component “RECOVER” after the Complainant’s trademark does not change the overall impression of a most likely connection with the trademark BOURSORAMA of the Complainant. As to the new gTLD “.link”, the Complainant suggests that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, the Complainant is not affiliated with nor has it ever authorised the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name and the Complainant has no business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the BOURSORAMA trademark, especially in France, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark in an intentionally designed way with the aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, and this is evidence of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name as parking page with commercial links, in order to mislead the consumers in believing that it is affiliated with the Complainant, which is considered as a clear indication of bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has tried to attract internet users for commercial gain. \r\nFor all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\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).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's whole trademark (BOURSORAMA), written in a misspelled way. The random omission of the letter “R” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. This is a clear case of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nThe same is valid for the addition of the generic term “RECOVER”, which does not prevent the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nAs far as the gTLD \".link\" is concerned, it is generally recognized that top level domains do not have any bearing in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity, according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nHence, the Panel is satisfied that the first requirement under the Policy is met.\r\n",
    "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).\r\n\r\nSince proving a negative fact is almost impossible, panelists in UDRP proceedings have generally agreed that it is sufficient for the Complainant to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn the case at issue, the Complainant argued that it had never authorised the Respondent to register the BOURSORAMA trademark in a domain name, and that it had never licensed its trademark to the Respondent. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Respondent has not demonstrated any use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, there is no other evidence in the case file that could demonstrate that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIn view of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order to rebut the Complainant's arguments, the Respondent had the possibility to make his own defense. However, the Respondent has chosen not to file a Response.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel is satisfied that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.\r\n",
    "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).\r\n\r\nAs far as registration in bad faith is concerned, given the reputation in France of the Complainant's trademark in its field of finance and the fact that the disputed domain name fully incorporates this trademark, it is rather clear that, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's trademark. The registration as domain name of a third party's well-known trademark with full knowledge of the fact that the rights over this trademark belong to a third party amounts to registration in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith respect to use in bad faith, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking website with commercial links, through which the Respondent is attempting to have commercial gain. For this Panel, such misleading behaviour clearly amounts to use in bad faith. At the same time, the Respondent is based in France, where the Complainant is extremely active and known. Therefore, it is impossible for this Panel to conceive any plausible active use of the disputed domain name by the Complainant that would be legitimate. \r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel finds it clear that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nFor all circumstances mentioned above, the Panel is satisfied that also the third requirement under the Policy is satisfied.\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Sozos-Christos Theodoulou"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-08-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In these proceedings, the Complainant relies on the following trademark:\r\n\r\n- “BOURSORAMA”, EU Registration No. 001758614, filed on July 13, 2000, and duly renewed, in the name of BOURSORAMA S.A.\r\n\r\nIt is worth noting that, the Complainant owns similar trademarks in other countries, which have not been cited in these proceedings.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOUSORAMA-RECOVER.LINK": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}