{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104420",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-03-18 09:37:12",
    "domain_names": [
        "apps-boursorama-en-ligne.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "icenow"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French company founded in 1995 focused on e-commerce, brokerage, and online financial products. It is the pioneer and 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 3 million customers. Its portal <boursorama.com> was the first national financial and economic information site and the first French online banking platform.\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the EUTM “BOURSORAMA”, registered, inter alia,  in connection with financial affairs or financial information provided online.\r\nThe Complainant presents its products via several websites and registered domain names consisting of its trademark wording, such as, <boursorama.com> and <boursoramabanque.com>.\r\nAccording to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘icenow’. The Respondent´s provided address as being at Tabuk Northwest Armed Force Hospital, Saudi Arabia. It registered the disputed domain name <apps-boursorama-en-ligne.com> on March 14, 2022. The disputed domain name is redirecting to an inactive website.",
    "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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nA.\tThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks. \r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademark “BOURSORAMA” and its domain names associated.\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the addition of the terms “APPS” and “EN LIGNE” [i. e. “ONLINE”] does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant´s trademark. The Complainant asserts that it 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” (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark “BOURSORAMA” of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated (WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.).\r\nThe Complainant adds that Its rights were confirmed by past panels decisions, such as the CAC Case No. 102278, Boursorama SA v. yvette cristofoli.\r\n\r\n\r\nB.\tThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the holder of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant contends that 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 (Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A. Inc. v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group).\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent is not known by the Complainant and that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the 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 “BOURSORAMA” or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nC.\tThe Complainant contends that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain with full knowledge of the Complainant´s trademark. The Complainant points out that past Panels have decided that the Complainant´s trademark is well-known (CAC Case No. 101131, Boursorama SA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas) and has distinctive nature (WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas). \r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent did not demonstrate any activity in respect of the disputed domain 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.\r\nThe Complainant adds that past Panels have decided that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows and WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "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. Radim Charvát, Ph.D., LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the European Union trademark (hereinafter “EUTM”):\r\n\r\n-\tregistered EUTM “BOURSORAMA” No. 001758614 for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification, with filing date on July 13, 2000 and registration date on October 10, 2001.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant proved its ownership of the aforementioned trademark registration by the submitted extract from the EUIPO Register.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "APPS-BOURSORAMA-EN-LIGNE.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}