The Complainant, BOURSORAMA S.A., was founded in 1995 and it deals with online financial products as its core business, in particular, with online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BOURSORAMA as well as domain names including said trademark, registered before the date of registration of the disputed domain name, which is September 9, 2022.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is currently inactive.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <boursoma.info> <\/strong>is confusingly similar to its trademark “BOURSORAMA” and there is an obvious misspelling in the domain name, which is a clear case of typosquatting. The Complainant refers to earlier decision of WIPO Case No. D2003-0093 (Microsoft Corporation v. X-Obx Designs <xobx.com>), where it was stated that typo errors and misspellings of trademarked terms have long been found to be confusingly similar.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.info” does not change the overall impression and it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its relevant domain names. The Complainant refers to the WIPO Case No. D2006-0451 (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.), where it was stated 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.<\/p>\n The Complainant also refers to the earlier UDRP decisions it obtained before CAC such as CAC Case No. 102253 (BOURSORAMA v. Brandsos.com <bboursorama.com> and al.), CAC Case No. 102211 (BOURSORAMA SA v. Olga Pererva <boursorma.com>), CAC Case No. 102170 (Boursorama SA v. johnny legend <boursoarma.com>).<\/p>\n Consequently, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <bourosrama.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “BOURSORAMA”.<\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME(S);<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and that this was considered by the past panels before as being not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Also, the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, as well as no authorization or license was given to the Respondent by the Complainant in order to make any use of the Complainant’s “BOURSORAMA” trademark including using and registering as domain name. The Complainant also claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant asserts that Respondent has not made any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and that it confirms the fact that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that it shows a lack of legitimate interests regarding the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name <boursoma.info>.<\/p>\n THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name <boursoma.info> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark “BOURSORAMA”. Thus, it is stated that given the reputation of the Complainant's trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The reference was given to the following cases:<\/p>\n Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name <boursoma.info> with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant states that this misspelling in the disputed domain name was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant refers to the previous UDRP cases where Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith, such as Forum Case No. 157321 (Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Bennie Hu), where the Panel held that Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name that differs from Complainant’s mark by only one letter indicates “typosquatting<\/em>”, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n The Complainant also indicates that the Respondent has not shown any activity with respect to 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 illegal, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights. The following prior WIPO UDRP panels were provided as examples, where it was held 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:<\/p>\n Consequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <boursoma.info> in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
"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).<\/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": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2022-10-25 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the European trademark \"BOURSORAMA\" no. 001758614 registered since October 19, 2001. The Complainant also owns the domain names of <boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998 and <boursorama-banque.com> registered since May 26, 2005.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"boursoma.info": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n