{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103773",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-04-29 09:38:51",
    "domain_names": [
        "boursorama-aide.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Michel Moi"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submitted references to prior panel decisions:\r\n\r\nCAC 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\nWIPO 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\nWIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\nWIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.",
    "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\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark \"BOURSORAMA\". The addition of the term “aide” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark \"BOURSORAMA” nor does it prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\nThe Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither 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.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant states it did not find any fair or non-commercial uses of the disputed domain name at stake.\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark considering the Complainant’s trademark reputation.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is not used in connection with any active website, but that MX records are linked to the domain name, which suggests that it may be actively used. Any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name should not be seen as use of the domain name in good faith.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\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).",
    "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": [
        "Arthur Fouré"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the following trademark:\r\n\r\nTrademark of the European Union BOURSORAMA No. 1758614 registered on 19 October 2001, duly renewed, and covering goods and services in international classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSORAMA-AIDE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}