{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103317",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-09-30 10:57:31",
    "domain_names": [
        "boursorama-fr.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "LaMark Indian Robinson"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFounded in 1995, BOURSORAMA S.A. (the Complainant) grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online.\r\n\r\nPioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, BOURSORAMA S.A. based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency.\r\n\r\nIn France, BOURSORAMA is the online banking reference with over 2 million customers. The 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®, such as the European trademark n° 1758614 registered since 19 October 2001.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA®, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since 1 March 1998 and <boursorama-banque.com> registered since 26 May 2005.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 23 September 2020 and to a page without any substantial content, except for the message “Future home of something quite cool”.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s mark:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name <boursorama-fr.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA®.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the abbreviation “FR” (for France) is 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 and its trademark.\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Please see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the GTLD “.COM” 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\nPlease see WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).\r\n\r\nThus, the disputed domain name <boursorama-fr.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BOURSORAMA®.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name:\r\n\r\nAccording to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance NAF Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“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 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 <boursorama-fr.com>.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a page without any substantial content, except for the message “Future home of something quite cool”. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name <boursorama-fr.com>.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boursorama-fr.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark BOURSORAMA®.\r\n\r\nTherefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nFor example:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc – Ken Thomas (“In the case at hand, the Respondent acted in bad faith especially because the Respondent, who has no connection with the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark, registered a domain name, which incorporates the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark and it is totally irrealistic to believe that the Respondent did not know the Complainant's trademark when registered the domain name <wwwboursorama.com>.”);\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas (“Given the circumstances of the case including the evidence on record of the longstanding of use of the Complainant's trademark, and the distinctive nature of the mark BOURSORAMA, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark.”).\r\n\r\nFinally, all the Google results for a search of the terms “BOURSORAMA FR” are related to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name <boursorama-fr.com> with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a page without any substantial content, except for the message “Future home of something quite cool”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law, or an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website.\r\n\r\nAs prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nFor instance:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <boursorama-fr.com> in bad faith.\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. Please see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“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\nPlease see: \r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc – Ken Thomas (“In the case at hand, the Respondent acted in bad faith especially because the Respondent, who has no connection with the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark, registered a domain name, which incorporates the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark and it is totally irrealistic to believe that the Respondent did not know the Complainant's trademark when registered the domain name <wwwboursorama.com>.”);\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas (“Given the circumstances of the case including the evidence on record of the longstanding of use of the Complainant's trademark, and the distinctive nature of the mark BOURSORAMA, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark.”).\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.    ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings.",
    "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": [
        "José Ignacio San Martín"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-10-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of EUTM registration No. 001758614 BOURSORAMA, filed on 13 July 2000 and granted on 19 October 2001, for products\/services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSORAMA-FR.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}