{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105003", "time_of_filling": "2022-11-22 09:27:38", "domain_names": [ "mon-espace-bourso.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA SA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Reusta Candice" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "
As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:

(a) the Complainant was founded in 1995, and provides services consisting in particular of online brokerage, financial information and online banking to around 4,3 million clients;

(b) the Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark;

(c) the Complainant owns various domain names including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, of which the domain name <boursorama.com> has been registered since 1 March 1998 or <\/span><bourso.com>, registered since 11 January 2000<\/span>; and

(d) the disputed domain name was registered on 15 November 2022 and resolves to a parking page.

The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.<\/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": "

The Parties' contentions are the following:

THE COMPLAINANT:

In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:

(i)  The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademark as it includes such trademark in its entirety and the addition of terms “MON ESPACE” (meaning “MY AREA” in French) is not sufficient to escape the finding of confusing similarity; <\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(ii) The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and is not related in any way to Complainant’s business. The Respondent is apparently making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, through the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name; and<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(iii) Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's Trademark and reputation, the Complainant can state that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark and therefore could not ignore the Complainant. Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of 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 illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. Therefore, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/span><\/div>\n

THE RESPONDENT:<\/span>

The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.<\/span><\/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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy <\/span>(\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\")<\/span>.<\/p>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/span><\/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": [ "Michal Matějka" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-12-19 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of the French national trademark \"BOURSO\", reg. no. 3009973, filed on 22 February 2000, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (“Complainant’s Trademark”).

The disputed domain name <mon-espace-bourso.com> was registered on 15 November 2022.<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "mon-espace-bourso.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }