PARTIES' CONTENTIONS<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span> - WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin <\/em>(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”.<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n - WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”)<\/em><\/p>\n The prior panel has confirmed the Complainant’s rights such as:<\/p>\n - WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.<\/em>, (the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie<\/em> case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie<\/em> case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.)<\/p>\n 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:<\/p>\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).”).<\/em><\/p>\n Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use:<\/p>\n • The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/em> The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant states that the Respondent 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.<\/span> • The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/em> The Complainant also asserts that the addition of the term “SUPPORT” to the trademark BOURSO cannot be coincidental, as it might refer to the Complainant’s customer service. The majority of the Google results of a search of those terms are related to the Complainant. The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name <bourso-support.com>.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n 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).<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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).<\/p>",
"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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2022-10-13 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Founded in 1995, BOURSORAMA (the Complainant) is one of Europe's very first online financial platforms. It became a pioneer and market leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet, and online banking.<\/p>\n The Complainant states and provides evidence to support that it is the owner of the French trademark n° 3009973 BOURSO, registered on 22 February 2000, predating the registration date of the disputed domain name <bourso-support.com>.<\/p>\n The Complainant also owns multiple domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since 1 March 1998 or domain name <bourso.com>, registered since 11 January 2000.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <bourso-support.com> was registered on 4 July 2022.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"bourso-support.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
The Complainant draws Panel attention to previous UDRP decisions:<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <bourso-support.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSO. The trademark is included in its entirety. The Complainant contends that the addition of the term \"SUPPORT\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSO.
Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix \".COM\" does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant's trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark, and its domain names associated.
• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
<\/em><\/p>\n
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/span>
The Complainant further provides that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. <\/span><\/p>\n
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant is doing business in more than 80 countries worldwide and is listed on the Euronext Paris stock exchange. Thus, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark BOURSO. <\/span><\/p>\n
The Complainant further states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends that the Respondent <\/span>has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": "
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>",
"rights": "