{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104023",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-09-20 09:58:51",
    "domain_names": [
        "bourssoramaclient.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "metall vergine"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant BOURSORAMA S.A., founded in 1995, 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 1,5 million customers. The portal https:\/\/www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.  ",
    "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\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThis registration is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. The slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n\r\n- CAC case No. 102253, BOURSORAMA v. Brandsos.com (“The disputed domain names are almost identical to the trademark BOURSORAMA of the Complainant since the only differences refer to an single letter added to Complainant´s trademark BOURSORAMA […] The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.”). \r\n\r\nTyposquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy 4(a)(ii).”).\r\n\r\n\r\nIt is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled: \r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc – Ken Thomas;\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark BOURSORAMA® was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant recalled:\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines (\"In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the <microssoft.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).\").",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Vojtěch Trapl"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-10-14 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 for various goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA®, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since 1 March 1998 and <clients-boursorama.com> registered since 23 March 2017.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <bourssoramaclient.com> was registered on 13 September 2021 and redirects to a parking page.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSSORAMACLIENT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}