{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104625", "time_of_filling": "2022-06-03 09:20:19", "domain_names": [ "www-bforbank.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BFORBANK" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Anonymize, Inc." ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant has rights in the BFORBANK trademark and service mark acquired by its use of the mark for its online bank since October 2009 and its ownership of European Union Trade Mark BFORBANK, registration number 008335598 registered since June 2, 2009.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BFORBANK including , registered since January 16, 2009.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on May 23, 2022 and resolves to a website on which the Respondent is purporting to represent as being Complainant’s official site and includes a fake login page that invites Internet users to input their personal data and bank account login details.\r\n\r\nThere is no information available about Complainant except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Center for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.", "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\nThe Complainant claims rights in the BFORBANK trademark and service mark acquired by its ownership of the European Union Trademark Registration described above and its use of the mark in its online banking business since October 2009, and submits that these rights have been confirmed in previous decisions under the Policy including BforBank v. mlk CAC Case No. 103192, ; BforBank SA v. Cameron David Jackson WIPO Case No. D2016-0643 .\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BFORBANK mark arguing 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”. See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the addition of the letters “www” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant nor does it prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the BFORBANK mark. The Complainant submits 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”. See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD\") suffix <.com> does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the BFORBANK mark nor does it prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant next alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not identified as the disputed domain name in the WhoIs database. Past panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a domain name at issue, if the registrant information on the WhoIs was not similar to the disputed domain name. See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group Forum Case No. FA 1781783, (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).”)\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s BFORBANK mark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains a statement in the French language entitled “Espace Client: accédez à vos comptes - BforBank” (which means in English “Customer area: “access your accounts - BforBank”) and asking the Complainant’s customers their credentials. \r\n\r\nThis Panel notes that the Complainant has not however submitted a copy of this webpage. Instead, the Complainant has annexed to the Complaint screen captures of a page on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves and of a page from Complainant’s own official website to which the Complainant’s own domain name resolves. \r\n\r\nEach of the two webpages are identical. \r\n\r\nEach has the identical layout, images and text and the Complainant submits that the Respondent has posted an exact copy of Complainant’s website which shows the image of a young man holding a phone, text that includes a warning in the French language against the dangers of phishing, advice not to pass the login details or other information to anyone. Each of the webpages invite login information to access the user’s bank account with the Complainant including the user’s date of birth.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that these screen captures show therefore that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to create a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark and to phish for personal banking information, which is not a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See BOURSORAMA SA v. zack levy CAC Case No. 103849, (“Use of a domain name for fraudulent purposes self-evidently does not comprise use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that the registrant had constructive knowledge\/prior knowledge of potential rights and that the Respondent is engaged in phishing.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's distinctive trademark BFORBANK and submits that the term “BFORBANK” has no meaning, except in relation with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to a screen capture of a Google search that shows that all the results refer to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a replica of the Complainant’s customer login page it is evident that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, shows that the Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant in order to phish for personal banking information, which is a hallmark of bad faith. See BOURSORAMA SA v. ROSAURA SAGESE (CAC Case No. 103186, “The circumstances of this case, in particular the Respondent's approach to ask customers for their ID and password on a website using the same color scheme as the Complainant indicates that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location, or of a product or service on such website or location.”).\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\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": [ "Mr James Jude Bridgeman" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-07-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of European Union Trade Mark BFORBANK, registration number 008335598, registered on June 2, 2009 for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36 and 38.", "decision_domains": { "WWW-BFORBANK.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }