{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104150", "time_of_filling": "2021-11-11 08:56:51", "domain_names": [ "bourasorama.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "xianjin hong" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant was founded in 1995 and grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online. Pioneer and leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, online financial information and online banking, Complainant based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency. In France, Complainant is the online banking reference with more than 2,000,000 customers. Its website has more than 30 million monthly visits.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 6 November 2021 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is currently inactive with restricted access. According to evidence provided by the Complainant, it used to redirect to a website related to energy saving water pumps.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. ", "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": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Complainant's rights to Complainant’s trademark predates registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- Disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s trademark with some minor changes such as addition of letter \"A\" to create a confusingly similar word BOURSORAMA.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name has been used (at least for some time) to redirect to a website related to energy saving water pumps. The Respondent used the dispute domain name in a way that fails to confer rights and legitimate interests, as it is used to promote unrelated services.\r\n\r\n- On the contrary, the disputed domain name was used for attracting internet users to services provided by the Respondent and this why it is free riding on reputation of the Complainant's trademark and its business.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Seniority of the Complainant's Trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration.\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name was used for attracting internet users to services provided by the Respondent, which are similar to those provided by Complainant, and therefore it is free riding on reputation of the Complainant's trademark and its business.\r\n\r\n- Respondent’s registration of the dispute domain name constitutes “typosquatting” when the spelling of an existing trademark has been minimally changed by a mere addition of a letter \"A\".\r\n\r\n- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n- Information about the Complainant and its business, its history and reviews concerning the services provided by the Complainant;\r\n- Excerpt from trademark database;\r\n- Excerpt from WHOIS database regarding disputed domain name;\r\n- Screenshots of relevant websites;\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the Complaint.", "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. Jiří Čermák" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-12-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is a registered owner of a following trademark containing a word element \"BOURSORAMA”:\r\n- BOURSORAMA (word), EU Trademark, priority (filing) date 13 July 2000, registration date 19 October 2001, trademark application no. 1758614, registered for goods and services in the international classes 4 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42;\r\n(referred to as \"Complainant's trademark\").\r\n\r\nAlso, the Complainant is the owner of the domain name , registered since 1 March 1998.", "decision_domains": { "BOURASORAMA.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }