{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104490", "time_of_filling": "2022-04-12 10:14:18", "domain_names": [ "banqueboursorama.info" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Jeremy Zenon - Bousorama Banque" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark BOURSORAMA. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant quotes different UDRP cases:\r\n\r\nCAC 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 .”)\r\n\r\nWIPO 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 of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark.”)\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, 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\nAs prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Complainant quotes:\r\nWIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\nWIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.\r\n\r\nMX servers are configured, which indicates the domain name may be used for email services. Previous panels have considered that the setting up of MX servers may be found to be further evidence of use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. (Decathlon v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, WIPO Case No. D2021-2228).\r\n", "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.", "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": "Language of Proceedings:\r\n\r\nUnder 11 of the UDRP Rules, the default language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise. The language of the registration agreement is French, but Complainant requests the Panel to accept Amended Complaint in English. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using a false name and address. However, the Panel does not accept such claim, which the Complainant moreover failed to evidence, as weighting on the choice of language of the proceedings. \r\n\r\nParagraph 10(c) of the Rules nevertheless dictates that the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Pursuant to Paragraph 10(b) of the Rules, all Parties should be treated with equality and given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Panel notes that no Response was received from the Respondent as to the language of the proceedings or merits of the Complaint. The Complainant having filed the Complaint in English, and in keeping with the Policy aim of facilitating a relatively time and cost-efficient procedure for the resolution of domain name disputes, the Panel determines that it would be appropriate for English to be the language of the proceedings in accordance with Paragraph 11 (a) of the UDRP Rules.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is therefore 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": [ "Arthur Fouré" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the following trademark:\r\n\r\nTrademark of the European Union BOURSORAMA No. 1758614 registered on 19 October 2001, duly renewed, and covering goods and services in international classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.\r\nFrench trademark BOURSO No. 3009973 registered on 22 February 2022, duly renewed and covering goods and services in international classes 09, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.", "decision_domains": { "BANQUEBOURSORAMA.INFO": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }