{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103399", "time_of_filling": "2020-11-09 09:13:53", "domain_names": [ "boursorama-espace.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "tadouri nadia" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, BOURSORAMA S.A., is a leading company in three core business areas: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds EU trademark registration for “BOURSORAMA” (Registration n°1758614) and the Complainant also holds domain names bearing “BOURSORAMA” such as .\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 26, 2020 and the domain name is currently inactive. \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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, BOURSORAMA S.A., founded in 1995 and is a leading company in finance with over 2 million customers in France.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds the EU trademark registration for the trademark “BOURSORAMA” and also is the owner of several domain names bearing “BOURSORAMA”.\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 “BOURSORAMA” as it bears the Complainant’s trademark as a whole.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the addition of the descriptive term “ESPACE” which means “space” is not sufficient to abolish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the “BOURSORAMA” trademark.\r\n\r\nFurther, the addition of the GTLD “.com” does not abolish the confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that many prior Panel decisions have accepted the Complainant’s rights such as:\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2019-0653, Boursorama S.A. v. Privacy Protection \/ Natalya Rustmovna ;\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2019-0422, Boursorama S.A. v. sabine jeane ;\r\n- CAC Case No. 102340, BOURSORAMA SA v. Céline Levy .\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 in the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “BOURSORAMA”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is suspended for abusive use.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent did never use the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Complainant’s trademark is widely-known and that the Respondent a French citizen, has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark “BOURSORAMA”. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier Panel decisions:\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 .”);\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\nThe Complainant also states that the disputed domain name is not being used for any bona fide offering and this fact, no use of the disputed domain name, alone is sufficient to prove the bad faith of the Respondent according to many WIPO UDRP decisions. \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": "2020-12-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the EU trademark BOURSORAMA. (Registration n°1758614).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “BOURSORAMA” such as .\r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOURSORAMA-ESPACE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }