The Complainant grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online. The Complainant claims to be a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, having based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency. In France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 4,3 million customers. The portal <www.boursorama.com> is the first national financial and economic information site and the first French online banking platform.<\/p>\n
The Complainant 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
The disputed domain name was registered on 30 November 2022 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.<\/p>\n
The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/span><\/p>\n The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/span><\/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>\n The Complainant made the following contentions: <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “BOURSORAMA” and its domain names associated. The Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term “PARRAINAGE” 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”.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.SITE” 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.<\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. <\/span>The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends 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. 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 Moreover, 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 (for example, Forum Case No. FA 970871 and WIPO Case No. D2007-1695).<\/p>\n Turning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant asserts that t<\/span>he disputed domain name includes the well-known and distinctive trademark “BOURSORAMA”. Besides, the addition of the term “PARRAINAGE”, meaning “SPONSORING” in French, cannot be coincidental, as it directly refers to the Complainant’s sponsorship program. Indeed, all the Google results of a search of the term “PARRAINAGE BOURSORAMA” refers to the Complainant. Consequently, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent must have known about the Complainant and its rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Finally, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent 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>",
"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 Chloupek"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-08 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of <\/span>the EU trademark registration No. 1758614 for \"BOURSORAMA\", applied for on 13 July 2000 and granted on 19 October 2001, for the classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"parrainage-boursorama.site": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}