{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103774", "time_of_filling": "2021-04-29 09:43:26", "domain_names": [ "espace-boursorama.life", "espace-boursorama.live" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "Benjamin Kors" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complaint, the Complainant was founded in 1995 and is a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, namely online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. The Complainant further states that it is the online banking reference in France with over 2.37 million customers, and that its portal on is the first national financial and economic information website and first French online banking platform. \r\n\r\nIn addition to the trade mark mentioned above, the Complainant states that it is the owner of several other trade marks and numerous domain names, such as the domain name which was registered on 1 March 1998. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names and were registered on 24 April 2021, and none of them resolve to active websites. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark BOURSORAMA, which is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain names. The addition of the French language term “espace” (which means “space” in English language) is insufficient to escape the finding of confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark BURSORAMA. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the New generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffixes “.life” and “live” do not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trade mark BOURSORAMA. Hence, the gTLDs do not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trade mark BOURSORAMA. \r\n\r\nIn order to substantiate its claim, the Complainant relies on previous UDRP decisions, namely WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Macalve e-dominios S.A. (arguing that the gTLD does not affect the test under the first element of the Policy); CAC Case No. 102253, BOURSORAMA v Brandsos.com, in respect of and al.; CAC Case No. 102211, BOURSORAMA SA v Olga Pererva, in respect of ; and CAC Case No. 102170, Boursorama SA v johnny legend, in respect of . \r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names\r\n\r\nThe Complainant relies on WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v Modern Empire Internet Ltd. to elucidate the evidentiary test under the UDRP, which requires the Complainant to make out a prima facie case. If successfully made, the burden of production is shifted to the Respondent to elicit any evidence to the contrary. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain names, and that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised by, the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. The Respondent has not been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark BURSORAMA nor to apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant. \r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names, and that the websites, to which the disputed domain names resolve, are inactive. The Complainant contends on this point that past UDRP decisions have held that the lack of use of a domain name is considered an important indicator of the absence of legitimate interests by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nIn view of the above factors, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that, given the Complainant’s trade mark’s distinctiveness and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names will full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark BURSORAMA. \r\n\r\nOn this point, the Complainant relies on previous UDRP decisions, namely CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas; and WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas. \r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant states that the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites. In this regard, the Complainant avers that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain names, that it is not possible to conceive any plausible actual or contemplated use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trade mark law. The Complainant relies on further previous UDRP decisions to base its claim 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 (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows; and 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 names in bad faith. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade 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 names (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 names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).\r\n", "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 Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark:\r\n\r\n• EU trade mark registration no. 1758614, dated 19 October 2001, for the word mark BURSORAMA, in classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification. \r\n", "decision_domains": { "ESPACE-BOURSORAMA.LIFE": "TRANSFERRED", "ESPACE-BOURSORAMA.LIVE": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }