{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104447",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-03-25 09:05:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "clientboursorama.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Christian Soulier"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "Complainant is a French online banking platform; it three core businesses are online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.\r\n\r\nThe beginning of Complainant’s activity dates back to 1995.\r\n\r\nComplainant presents itself as the main online banking reference in France and the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform. \r\n\r\nRespondent is Christian Soulier, located in France.\r\n\r\nOn March 22, 2022, Respondent registered the disputed domain name <clientboursorama.com>, which is currently inactive. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nFACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nIt 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”. See WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nSee also for instance:\r\n\r\n- Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”);\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101131, BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas (“In the case at hand, the Respondent acted in bad faith especially because the Respondent, who has no connection with the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark, registered a domain name, which incorporates the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark and it is totally irrealistic to believe that the Respondent did not know the Complainant's trademark when registered the domain name <wwwboursorama.com>.”);\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas (“Given the circumstances of the case including the evidence on record of the longstanding of use of the Complainant's trademark, and the distinctive nature of the mark BOURSORAMA, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge \r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.    ",
    "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": "Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint, and is therefore in default. ",
    "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).\r\n\r\nComplainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOURSORAMA registered trademark.\r\n\r\nAccording to case law, Complainant asserts that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP, see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nComplainant states that the addition of the generic term “CLIENT” and the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nComplainant considers that rather than preventing any likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated, the addition of the term “CLIENT” worsens the likelihood of confusion, as it directly refers to Complainant’s official customer access https:\/\/clients.boursorama.com\/.",
    "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\nFirst, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not identified in the Whois database nor is commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nSecondly, Complainant highlights that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant, was neither granted a licence nor an authorization to make use of Complainant’s trademark, or to register the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, in support of its claims, Complainant submits the Annex 5, a screenshot demonstrating that the disputed domain name is inactive, showing the lack of legitimate use or plan to use the disputed domain name. ",
    "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\nComplainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known trademark BOURSORAMA. Complainant therefore infers that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s well-known trademark.\r\n\r\nIn support of its claims, Complainant brings in evidence, that all of the results of a Google search of the terms “BOURSORAMA” refers to Complainant. \r\n\r\nBesides, Complainant contends that the fact that Respondent has incorporated a famous trademark into a domain name but has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name is further evidence of bad faith; moreover, Complainant states that it would be impossible 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 Complainant’s rights under trademark law.",
    "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": [
        "Nathalie Dreyfus"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant owns rights in the “BOURSORAMA” sign and shows valid trademark rights as follows:\r\n\r\n- The European trademark “BOURSORAMA” No. 001758614 dated July 13, 2000, a renewed.\r\n\r\nComplainant also operates domain names including the same distinctive wording “BOURSORAMA”, namely the domain names <boursorama.com>, registered since February 28, 1998 and <boursoramabanque.com>, registered since May 25, 2005.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CLIENTBOURSORAMA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}