{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104880", "time_of_filling": "2022-09-30 13:49:35", "domain_names": [ "aboursorama.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Host Master (Transure Enterprise Ltd)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n

The Complainant was founded in 1995 and is a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.
The Complaint claims to have over 2 million customers in France. 
The Complainant’s site www.baboursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and the first French online banking platform.
In addition to “BOURSORAMA” trademarks the Complainant also owns a number of domain names with the same distinctive wording “BOURSORAMA”, such as the domain name <baboursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998 and <boursorama-banque.com> registered since May 26, 2005.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 24, 2022.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. The addition of the letter “A” is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion and 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\". 
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant also refers to previous UDRP decisions that confirmed the Complainant’s trademark rights. <\/p>\n


THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database at the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. 
The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. 
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links and highlights that past UDRP 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 WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that since the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark and refers to some earlier UDRP decisions relating to the same Complaint’s trademark.
The Complainant also states that the misspelling in the disputed domain name was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks and shall be seen as evidence of bad faith.
The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links and the Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website, which is an evidence of bad faith.
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/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": "

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": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-10-31 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark:<\/p>\n