{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103833",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-06-01 08:35:24",
    "domain_names": [
        "clients-boursorama-banque.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Hassan Boghich"
    ],
    "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 and has been active in Europe in connection with financial products online. The Complainant claims to be the leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. In France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 2.8 million customers. The portal at the Complainant’s domain <www.boursorama.com> is the first national financial and economic information site and the first French online banking platform.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <clients-boursorama-banque.com> was registered on 24 May 2021 and resolves to an inactive page.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.\r\n",
    "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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions:\r\n \r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its asserted trademark “BOURSORAMA” which is included in its entirety. The addition of the French terms “CLIENTS” (which means “Customers”) and “BANQUE” (which means “Bank”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and, consequently, 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\nThe Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that 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. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, the disputed domain name is not used or 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\nAccordingly, the Complainant argues that it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTurning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark “BOURSORAMA”. The Complaint considers it reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name 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 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 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\nFinally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name 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 name in bad faith.",
    "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. Vojtěch Chloupek"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the EU trademark registration No. 1758614 for \"BOURSORAMA\", applied on 13 July 2000 and granted on 19 October 2001, for the classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <boursorama.com> which was created on 1 March 1998.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CLIENTS-BOURSORAMA-BANQUE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}