BFORBANK is an online bank launched in October 2009 by the Crédit Agricole Regional Banks. BFORBANK offers daily banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services. The disputed domain name <bf-bank.com> was registered on December 23, 2022, and redirects to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities and offering the domain name for sale for 9888 USD.<\/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": "
ARGUMENTS OF THE COMPLAINANT: <\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <bf-bank.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark BFORBANK. It argues that the substitution of the letters “OR” by the hyphen in the trademark BFORBANK is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods BFORBANK.<\/p>\n
It further contends that this is a clear case of \"typosquatting<\/em>“, i.e. that the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark: BF-BANK instead of BFORBANK. The Complainant further goes on to state that the disputed domain name incorporates six letters of the Complainant's trademark and contains sufficiently recognisable aspects of the Complainant’s trademark to give rise to confusing similarity. The Complainant asserts that the pronunciation of the disputed domain and the Complainant’s trademark is the almost the same as the absence of the letters “O” and “R” does not alter the pronunciation of the trademark BFORBANK.<\/p>\n The Complainant cites previous panel decision which state that “The use of an abbreviation of the trade mark does not in the circumstances of this case sufficiently distinguish the resulting domain name from the Complainant’s trade mark and does not avoid confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name”<\/em> quoting CAC Case No. 104430, BOURSORAMA SA v. Jean Valjean.<\/p>\n Moreover, it puts forward that previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark and refers to WIPO Case No. D2003-0093, Microsoft Corporation v. X-Obx Designs <xobx.com> (“Typographical error variations and misspellings of trademarked terms have long been found to be confusingly similar.”<\/em>).<\/p>\n Besides, 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 BFORBANK of the Complainant. This is argued not to prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant points out that its rights in the name “BFORBANK’ have been confirmed by previous Panels and cites CAC Case No. 103192, <\/span>BforBank v. mlk <borbank.com> <\/em>and <\/span>WIPO Case No. D2010-1300, <\/span>Bforbank S.A. v. Transure Enterprise Ltd\/Above.com Domain Privacy <bfobank.com>.<\/em><\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the additional requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. The Complainant makes a number of legal arguments and also supplies a set of annexes providing evidence of its activities and of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has not shown, to the satisfaction of the Panel, that 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": " Since the Complainant has not established that the case meets the requirements of the first element of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there is no need to examine whether 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": " Since the Complainant has not established that the case meets the requirements of the first element of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, there is no need to examine whether 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": "Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Udo Pfleghar B.A. (Melb.)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-03-27 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant, BFORBANK, is the owner of several trademarks BFORBANK, such as the European trademark n° 8335598 registered since June 2, 2009. The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BFORBANK, such as the domain name <bforbank.com>, registered since January 16, 2009.<\/p>\n <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"bf-bank.com": "REJECTED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}