{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103616", "time_of_filling": "2021-03-03 09:17:15", "domain_names": [ "brs-investissement.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "BRS Investissement" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFounded in 1995, Boursorama, the Complainant, is one of the very first online financial platforms in Europe. One of the earliest of the emerging e-commerce providers, it enjoyed substantial growth due to its continuous expansion and grew into a pioneer and market leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. Today in France, Boursorama is the leading online banking provider.\r\n\r\nThe use of an abbreviation of the trademark does not in the circumstances of this case sufficiently distinguish the resulting domain name from the Complainant’s trademark nor avoid confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name (see WIPO Case No. D2016-1452 ZB, N.A., dba Zions First National Bank and ZB, N.A., dba Amegy Bank v. Cameron David Jackson; see also Express Messenger Systems, Inc. v. Golden State Overnight, WIPO Case No. D2001-0063; and Dow Jones & Company, Inc. & Dow Jones LP v. T.S.E. Parts, WIPO Case No. D2001-0381; Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Steven Scully, J&S Auto Repair, WIPO Case No. D2015-1001).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is using the disputed domain name to send emails seeking to mislead recipients as to the identity of the sender for its own commercial gain. Such conduct is deceptive, illegal, and in previous UDRP decisions has been found to be evidence of registration and use in bad faith, see The Coca-Cola Company v. Marcus Steiner, WIPO Case No. D2012-1804 (\"the Panel concludes that the deliberate use of the Complainant’s trade mark as part of the disputed domain name, is most likely intended to enable the Respondent to attract for commercial gain by email, consumers who are misled into providing their personal data. This would fall squarely within the type of circumstances to which the Policy refers.\"). The Complainant finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant assumes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark \"BOURSORAMA\" as the disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. The mere addition of the prefix \"www\" at the beginning of the disputed domain name does not alter the finding of similarity between the signs. In this perspective it should be considered that the Complainant also owns the domain name .\r\n\r\nFurthermore, according with the Complainant's statement, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in dispute since the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorized by it in any way and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. In addition, according to the Whois information connected to , the Respondent is not commonly known with the terms Boursorama or Wwwboursorama.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also contends that the website in relation with the domain name in dispute only displays an inactive page since its registration and that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name coupled with an inactive website may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.", "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", "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": [ "Dr. jur. Harald von Herget" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of different trademark registrations for \"BOURSORAMA\". In particular the Complainant owns:\r\n\r\nFrench Registration for \"BOURSORAMA\" no. 98723359 registered on March 13, 1998 and duly renewed for classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42; and\r\n\r\nCTM Registration for \"BOURSORAMA\" no. 1758614 registered on October 19, 2001 and duly renewed for classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the domain name , registered since March 1, 1998 which is identical with the company name of the Complainant. Especially his domain names < brsimg.com>, < brsourama.com > include the abbreviation \"brs\" in the domain names.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 2, 2021. The Complainant's marks and domains predate the registration of the disputed domain name.", "decision_domains": { "BRS-INVESTISSEMENT.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }