{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104787", "time_of_filling": "2022-08-12 09:10:39", "domain_names": [ "dollore.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOLLORE SE" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Sugar Mine Co. Ltd" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on August 1, 2022.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Besides, the domain name has been used in a phishing scheme.\r\n\r\nLegal Grounds:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®. Indeed, the substitution of the “B” by the “D” in the trademark BOLLORE® is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion existing, as they look highly similar.\r\n\r\nThis is a clear case of “typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to CAC Case No. 103070, BOLLORE v. Ryan Stewart (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. As the Complainant correctly pointed out, substitution of the letter “o” by the letter “c” in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Trademark, as they look highly similar from visual perspective. It is an obvious, and in the opinion of the Panel also deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s Trademark and thus a clear case of typosquatting.”).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant contends that 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 BOLLORE®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to 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.”).\r\n\r\nPrior UDRP confirmed the Complaint’s rights in cases CAC Case No. 102999, BOLLORE v. Dusenberry Julie, ; WIPO Case No. D2020-0428, Bollore v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation \/ Prince Sammy, ; CAC Case No. 103261, BOLLORE SE v. bayama moore, .\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nAccording 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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name, but as “Sugar Mine Co. Ltd”. 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. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by BOLLORE 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.\r\n\r\nMoreover, neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOLLORE®. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to Forum Case No. FA 1807147, Bittrex Inc. v. Kathryn Bates (“The Panel agrees that misspellings, such as the substitution of a letter, do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's BITTREX trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to further a phishing scheme. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to Forum Case No. FA 1785242, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S \/ Internet Consulting Services Inc. (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”).\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name .\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE® is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE® in the following cases:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john (“the Panel takes note, again, of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's brand and the intention that must be presumed to exist in registering a domain name bearing such confusing similarity with well-known brand name.”);\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101696, BOLLORE v. Hubert Dadoun (“As the Complainant is also one of the largest 500 companies in the world, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that their trademark has a strong reputation and is in fact to be considered well-known.”)\".\r\n\r\n\r\nThus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and branded goods BOLLORE®. Indeed, the substitution of the letter “B” by the letter “D” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOLLORE®. The Complainant states that this misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to CAC Case No. 101990, JCDECAUX SA v. Gemma Purnell (“Furthermore, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain name is a typical case of typosquatting which in turn is a strong indicator of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.”).\r\n\r\nFinally, the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. Past panels have confirmed that impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s trademark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to Forum Case No. FA 1661030, Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green\/ Whois Agent\/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e-mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).).\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.", "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.", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n", "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).\r\n\r\nThis is a case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.\r\n\r\nPrevious panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. exchanging the first letter \"b\" in BOLLORE with the very similar looking and sounding letter \"d\", does not take away the confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark.\r\n\r\nSimple exchange or adding of letters is not a sufficient element to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names.", "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).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use his trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.", "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).\r\n\r\nGiven the circumstances of the case, including the provided information of the use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE and the distinctive nature of this mark, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. In this case the Complainant has however evidenced that the disputed domain name enables the Respondent to send emails using an e-mail address that contains the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIt is inconceivable that the Respondent can use the e-mails connected to the disputed domain name for good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address. The Panel notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.", "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.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Lars Karnoe" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-09-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The BOLLORE group (the Complainant) was founded in 1822. Thanks to a diversification strategy based on innovation and international development, it now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines: Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions (please see their website at: www.bollore.com).\r\n\r\nIt is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, the majority interest of the Group's stock is always controlled by the Bolloré family. This stable majority control of its capital allows the Group to develop a long-term investment policy. In addition to its activities, the Group manages a number of financial assets including plantations and financial investments.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks including the term “BOLLORE”, such as the international trademark registration BOLLORE® n° 704697.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns and communicates on the Internet through various domain names, the main one being , registered on July 25, 1997.", "decision_domains": { "DOLLORE.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }