{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104906", "time_of_filling": "2022-10-11 09:15:38", "domain_names": [ "bienvenue-boursorama.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Myriad" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "
\n
The disputed domain name <bienvenue-boursorama.com> was registered on 21 November 2020 and resolves to an error page.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
The Complainant has been founded in 1995 and since the time it grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online.

The Complainant is a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, BOURSORAMA S.A. based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency.

\n

In France, it is the online banking reference with over 2.37 million customers. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "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>\n

COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n

A. 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 states that the disputed domain name <bienvenue-boursorama.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA® and its domain names associated.                   <\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the addition of the French generic term “BIENVENUE” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSORAMA®. 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” ( WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOURSORAMA®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated. 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.”).<\/p>\n

Finally, many UDRP decisions have also confirmed the Complainant’s rights such as:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • CAC Case No. 104433, <\/span>BOURSORAMA SA v. 1337 Services LLC <<\/em> <\/span><\/em>fr-boursorama.com>;<\/em><\/li>\n
  • CAC Case No. 102278, <\/span>BOURSORAMA v. <\/span><\/em>yvette cristofoli, <boursorama-ecopret.com>;<\/em><\/li>\n
  • CAC Case No. 101844, <\/span>BOURSORAMA SA<\/em><\/span> <\/span><\/em>likid french, <\/span><\/em><client-boursorama.net>.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    <\/p>\n

    B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/p>\n

    According to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie 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 Policy.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. 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. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. For instance 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).”).<\/p>\n

    The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that 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.<\/p>\n

    Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a page entitled “Espace Client: accédez à vos comptes - Boursorama Banque” (which mean “Customer area: “access your accounts - Boursorama Banque” in French) and asking the Complainant’s customers their credentials. This page copies the Complainant’s official customer access.<\/p>\n

    Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to create a likelihood of confusion and phish for personal banking information, which is not a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

    CAC Case No. 103849, BOURSORAMA SA v. zack levy (“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.”).<\/p>\n

    <\/p>\n

    C. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n

    The disputed domain name includes the well-known and distinctive trademark BOURSORAMA®.<\/p>\n

    Besides, the disputed domain resolves to a copy of the Complainant’s official customer access.<\/p>\n

    Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a page entitled “Espace Client: accédez à vos comptes - Boursorama Banque” (which mean “Customer area: “access your accounts - Boursorama Banque” in French) and asking the Complainant’s customers their credentials. This page is a copy of the Complainant’s official customer access.<\/p>\n

    Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent attempts to pass of the Complainant in order to phish for personal banking information, which is a hallmark of bad faith.<\/p>\n

    CAC Case No. 103186, BOURSORAMA SA v. ROSAURA SAGESE (“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.”).<\/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": [ "Vojtěch Trapl" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-11-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

    \n
    \n

    BOURSORAMA S.A. (the Complainant) grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online. Pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, BOURSORAMA based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency.<\/p>\n

    In France, BOURSORAMA is the online banking reference with over 4 million customers. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant is the owner of <\/span>the European trademark BOURSORAMA® n°1758614 registered since 19 October 2001 for various goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42.<\/p>\n

    The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA®, such as the domain names <boursorama.com>, registered since 1 March 1998, and <boursoramabanque.com>, registered since 26 May 2005.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "bienvenue-boursorama.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }