{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103261",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-08-31 10:56:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "bollora.xyz"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOLLORE SE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "bayama moore"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFounded in 1822, the Complainant's group in 2019 had 84,000 employees world-wide and revenues of nearly €25 billion and is among the 500 largest companies in the world. The Group is prominent in three lines of business: transportation and logistics, communications, and electricity storage and systems.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark \"BOLLORE\" is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of its trademarks in the following cases:\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john;\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 101696, BOLLORE v. Hubert Dadoun.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to a parking page which contains links related to commercial products and services, including for supply of plates and swimming lessons.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adduced evidence of the use of the disputed domain name in the form of an e-mail sent on 28 August 2020 to a potential customer of the Complainant. The e-mail's content includes the postal address and contact details of the Complainant's establishment in Shanghai. It falsely purports to have been sent by a manager belonging to that establishment.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <bollora.xyz> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark \"BOLLORE\" and contains an obvious misspelling of the trade mark, making this a clear case of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nSubstitution of the “E” by the “A” in the trade mark is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusing similarity. Nor does  addition of the New Generic Top-Level Domain suffix <.xyz> change the overall impression of the name being connected to the trade mark, the Complainant or its domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name and asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant. It also refers to past ADR Decisions in its favour and cites examples of earlier Panels' views that, once a prima facie case is made out as regards the absence of a legitimate right or interest, the burden of proof then switches to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further claims that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration and that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and used it to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to source, affiliation or endorsement within the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent has thus acted in bad faith. \r\n\r\nSuch conduct is furthermore deceptive and illegal. Past ADR Decisions have notably identified phishing as showing bad faith.\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <bollora.xyz> in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: 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 that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-10-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant adduced proof that is the owner of international trade mark No. 704697, a figurative mark with the word element \"Bolloré\". This trade mark was registered on 11 December 1998 in Classes 16, 17, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 39 of the Nice Classification List on the basis of a French mark of origin; its designations provide for the mark's protection in over 40 countries. The Complainant showed that its authorized representative in the present proceeding is the registrar for the domain name <bollore.com>, registered on 25 July 1997, and states that it is the registrant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name <bollora.xyz>, registered on 26 August 2020.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOLLORA.XYZ": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}