{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101369",
    "time_of_filling": "2016-12-01 10:05:17",
    "domain_names": [
        "boursorama.top"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Yolanda Singletary"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Claimant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Claimant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:\r\n\r\n(a)\tthe Complainant was founded in 1995, and provides services to its clients consisting in particular of online brokerage, financial information and online banking; in late 2015 it had about 757,000 clients (Annex 1 of the complaint);\r\n\r\n(b)\tthe Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark (Annex 2 of the complaint);\r\n\r\n(c)\tthe Complainant owns various domain names including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, of which the domain name <boursorama.com> has been registered since 1 March 1998 (Annex 3 of the complaint);\r\n\r\n(d)\tthe Disputed domain name was registered on 20 November 2016 (Annex 4 of the complaint);  and\r\n\r\n(e)\tunder the Disputed domain name there was a website in operation (Annex 5 of the complaint) resembling the official website of the Complainant at <www.boursorama.com> (Annex 6 of the complaint), including page purporting to be an entry to the Complainant’s online banking system and prompting users to enter their login credentials to such system. Such website was subsequently inactivated and no website was operated under the Disputed domain name as of 24 November 2016 (Annex 7 of the complaint).\t\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the Disputed domain name to the Complainant. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the Disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nTHE COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n(i)\tThe Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and is not related in any way to Complainant’s business. The Respondent is apparently making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, through the Disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the Disputed domain name; and\r\n\r\n(ii)\tThe Respondent uses the Disputed domain name in an attempt to phish for Internet users’ personal information. Panels have held that use of a domain for phishing activities constitutes bad faith under Policy 4(a)(iii). Please see Morgan Stanley v. Zhang Sheng Xu \/ Zhang Sheng Xu, FA 1600534 (Forum Feb. 16, 2015).\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the Disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Michal Matějka"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-01-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of the EU word trademark “BOURSORAMA”, reg. no. 001758614, filed on July 13, 2000, registered on 19 October, 2001, with the priority date of 13 July 2000, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (“Complainant’s Trademark”). \r\n\r\nThe Disputed domain name <boursorama.top>  was registered on 20 November 2016.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSORAMA.TOP": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}