{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103804",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-05-13 11:36:13",
    "domain_names": [
        "boursorama-espace-clients.com",
        "espace-client-boursorama.info"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "saad saad"
    ],
    "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:\r\n\r\n(a) The Complainant was founded in 1995, and provides services to its clients consisting in particular of online brokerage, financial information and online banking; \r\n\r\n(b) The Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark;\r\n\r\n(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;\r\n\r\n(d) The disputed domain name <boursorama-espace-clients.com> was registered on 8 May 2021  and <espace-client-boursorama.info> on 9 May 2021; and\r\n\r\n(e) Both disputed domain names resolve to page with commercial links (pay-per-click).  ",
    "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 names.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nIn addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:\r\n\r\n(i) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark which is included in disputed domain names in its entirety. The addition of French term “Espace Clients” (meaning in English “Customers Area”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods BOURSORAMA®.\r\n\r\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 names. Therefore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain names; and\r\n\r\n(iii) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademark which is well-known and therefore it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark. Moreover, disputed domain names resolve to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own websites thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain. As a result, the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP\" or \"Policy\").\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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 names within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".",
    "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": [
        "Michal Matějka"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-06-18 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of the EU word trademark “BOURSORAMA”, reg. no. 001758614, filed on July 13, 2000, registered on 19 October 2001, with the priority date of 13 July 2000, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (“Complainant’s Trademark”). \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <boursorama-espace-clients.com> was registered on 8 May 2021  and <espace-client-boursorama.info> on 9 May 2021. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BOURSORAMA-ESPACE-CLIENTS.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "ESPACE-CLIENT-BOURSORAMA.INFO": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}