{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103778", "time_of_filling": "2021-05-03 09:03:30", "domain_names": [ "boursoramaespaceclient.info" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "tadouri nadia" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant draws Panel attention to previous UDRP decisions:\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 .”);\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\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 (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\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi (“the Respondent has advanced no basis on which he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”);\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket \/ JM Consultants (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s lack of content at the disputed domain shows the lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii).”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA. The trademark is included in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the French term \"Espace Client\" (\"Customer area\" in English) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods BOURSORAMA. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix \".INFO\" 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\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the 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 .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further provides that the disputed domain name is not used and the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration and confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name since its registration. Past panels 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\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark BOURSORAMA. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the disputed domain name resolves to an index page. 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, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good-faith purpose. ", "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": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO 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": [ "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "Founded in 1995, BOURSORAMA (the Complainant) is one of the very first online financial platforms in Europe. It grew into a pioneer and market leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet, and online banking.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states and provides evidence to support that it is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA, such as the European trademark n° 1758614 registered since 19 October 2001, predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name , registered since 1 March 1998.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 28 April 2021. ", "decision_domains": { "BOURSORAMAESPACECLIENT.INFO": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }