{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103823", "time_of_filling": "2021-05-25 09:12:59", "domain_names": [ "boursorama-services.casa", "boursorama-services.club" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "gazi dulal" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nFounded in 1995, the Complainant grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online.\r\n\r\nPioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, BOURSORAMA S.A. based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency.\r\n\r\nIn France, BOURSORAMA is the online banking reference with over 2.8 million customers. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered on May 18, 2021.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page and the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nMX servers are configured on both domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA. The trademark BOURSORAMA is included in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe addition of term “SERVICES” is in the view of Complainant not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods BOURSORAMA.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the New GTLD suffix “.CASA” and “.CLUB” do not change the overall impression of the designations as being connected to the trademark BOURSORAMA of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nThus, the disputed domain names are in the view of Complainant confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BOURSORAMA.\r\n\r\nTherefore, Complainant states it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive 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 disputed 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. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, 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\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nFinally, the disputed domain names have been set up with MX servers 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 names could not be used for any good faith purpose.\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 not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 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).", "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": [ "Jan Christian Schnedler, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA, such as the European trademark n° 1758614 registered since 19 October 2001 and covering goods and services in international classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name , registered since March 1, 1998. \r\n", "decision_domains": { "BOURSORAMA-SERVICES.CASA": "TRANSFERRED", "BOURSORAMA-SERVICES.CLUB": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }