{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103842",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-06-04 10:04:56",
    "domain_names": [
        "boursorama-2dp.com",
        "boursorama-2dsp.com",
        "boursorama-2sd.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "zack levy"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant was founded in 1995 as BOURSORAMA S.A. and has grown in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online.\r\n\r\nIn France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 2.8 million customers. Furthermore, the portal <www.boursorama.com> is the first national financial and economic information site and the first French online banking platform.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns several domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since 1998.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered on May 27, 2021 and on May 28, 2021. The disputed domain names are not used; they resolve to an error page or an inactive page.    ",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "COMPLAINANT\r\n\r\n1. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark \"BOURSORAMA\". The trademark is included in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe addition of misspelling versions of the term \"PSD2\" (meaning \"Payments Service Directive 2\", referring to a Directive of the European Parliament on payment services within the internal market), and a hyphen is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods \"BOURSORAMA\".\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that \"a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP\". \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that adding the generic Top-Level Domain suffix \".COM\" does not change the overall impression of the designations as being connected to the trademark \"BOURSORAMA\" of the Complainant. Therefore, it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThus, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark \"BOURSORAMA\".\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain names. However, past panels have held that a disputed domain name did not commonly know a Respondent if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant does not know the Respondent. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. 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 names.\r\n\r\nFinally, the disputed domain names are not actively used. Since their registration, the Respondent did not use disputed domain names and confirmed that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain names. 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\n3. The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark \"BOURSORAMA\".\r\n\r\nMoreover, the addition of misspelling versions of the term \"PSD2\" (meaning \"Payments Service Directive 2\", referring to a Directive of the European Parliament on payment services within the internal market) cannot be coincidental as it relates to secured payment, which is related to the Complainant's banking activities.\r\n\r\nTherefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent, who is French, has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain names are not actively used. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain names. It is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the 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 trademark law. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, incorporating a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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 the Policy were met, and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of European trademark n° 1758614, registered since October 19, 2001.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSORAMA-2DP.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "BOURSORAMA-2DSP.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "BOURSORAMA-2SD.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}