{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105362", "time_of_filling": "2023-04-17 10:05:11", "domain_names": [ "acquisitionformbourso.com", "accueilboursoprofilpresent.com", "constatdegestionboursoposte.com", "decouvrirlesparametresbourso.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Mondesir Perco", "Reco Marvyn" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French corporation founded in 1995, a subsidiary of Société Générale. The Complainant is pioneer and leader in three core businesses: online banking, online brokerage and online financial information.<\/span>

In France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 4,7 million customers. The Complainant's main website (<boursorama.com>) is the first national financial and economic information site and the first French online banking platform.<\/span>

The disputed domain names are:<\/span><\/p>\n

<<\/span>acquisitionformbourso.com> registered on 11 April 2023 by Mondesir Perco, an individual residing in Marseille, France;<\/span><\/p>\n

<accueilboursoprofilpresent.com>, <constatdegestionboursoposte.com> and decouvrirlesparametresbourso.com>, all registered on 13 April 2023 by Reco Marvyn, an individual residing in Paris, France.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>The disputed domain names are not associated with any active website.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT: <\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark, since the BOURSO trademark is reproduced in its entirety and the addition of the generic and descriptive terms do not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. 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, or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, nor has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain names.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the disputed domain names are not actively used. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in good faith. To the contrary, two domain names were previously used to resolve to a website with direct reference to the Complainant’s activities. Therefore, the Respondent did not use the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that the registration of disputed domain names confusingly similar to the well-known trademark of the Complainant and, thus, the constructive knowledge on behalf of the Respondent of the Complainant’s potential rights, as well as the previous use and the current passive holding of the disputed domain names, clearly shows the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain names.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names.
<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 have been registered and are 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>\n

Under paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules, the Panel shall decide, on its own discretion, to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules. At the same time, paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.<\/p>\n

In deciding consolidation, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency shall also be taken into consideration by panels (paragraph 10(c) of the UDRP Rules: \"The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition\").<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span>Considered that:<\/p>\n