{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105070",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-12-20 08:49:30",
    "domain_names": [
        "brma-support.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Patrick Legoff"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span>The Complainant is a French company, founded in 1995, which became a leader in its three core businesses, i.e. online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking as 'Boursorama Banque'.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>The Complainant provides information on its products online inter alia at &lt;boursorama.com&gt;, but has also registered the domain names &lt;brma-info.com&gt;, &lt;brma-login.com&gt; and &lt;brsma-client.com&gt;.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>The disputed domain name &lt;brma-support.com&gt; was registered on November 9, 2022 and redirects to a parking page with commercial links. However, the domain name was used to impersonate the Complainant and has been used for phishing purposes.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark with the argument that \"<\/span><span>BRMA\" is the abbreviation of the Trademark. \"BRMA\" is not a dictionary word, meaning that \"BRMA\" is the main and most obviously recognizable source identification element of the disputed domain name. The use of an abbreviation of the trademark does not in the circumstances of this case sufficiently distinguish the resulting domain name from the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark nor avoids confusing similarity between Complainant&rsquo;s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant for consumer fraud purposes is evidence of bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p><span>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p><span>The Complainant owns several trademark registrations<em> inter alia <\/em>the EU trademark registration No. 1758614 \"BOURSORAMA\", registered on October 19, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Trademark\").<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "brma-support.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}