{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105323", "time_of_filling": "2023-04-20 10:58:58", "domain_names": [ "boursorama-soutien.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "lanet gane" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a European company with business in e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online<\/span>. It is the pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. In France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 4,7 million customers. Its portal <boursorama.com> was the first national financial and economic information site and the first French online banking platform.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the EUTM “BOURSORAMA”, registered, inter alia, in connection with financial affairs or financial information provided online.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant owns several registered domain names consisting of Its trademark wording, such as <boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘lanet gane’. The Respondent´s provided address is being at London, Lincolnshire, the United Kingdom. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <boursorama-soutien.com> on March 25, 2023 (hereinafter “disputed domain name”). The disputed domain name is redirecting to an error page and MX serves are configured.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademarks. <\/span><\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademark “BOURSORAMA” and its domain names associated because the disputed domain name includes it in its entirety.<\/span><\/p>\n

    According to the Complainant, the addition of the generic term “SOUTIEN” (meaning “SUPPORT”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant adds that it is well established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).<\/span><\/p>\n

    The Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark “BOURSORAMA” of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated (see WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.).<\/span><\/p>\n

    Finally, the Complainant adds that Its rights were confirmed by past Panels decisions, such as the CAC Case No. 102278, Boursorama SA v. yvette cristofoli; CAC Case No. 104433, <\/span>BOURSORAMA SA v. 1337 Services LLC; CAC Case No. 101844, BOURSORAMA SA likid french.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. <\/span><\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The Complainant states that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the holder of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant contends that 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 (Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A. Inc. v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group). <\/span><\/p>\n

      The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not known by the Complainant and that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant 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. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant´s trademark “BOURSORAMA” or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name (when the disputed domain resolves to an error page), and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name (<\/span>Forum Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket \/ JM Consultants).<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. The Complainant contends that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/span><\/u><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain with full knowledge of the Complainant´s trademark. The Complainant points out that past Panels have decided that the Complainant´s trademark is well-known and has distinctive nature (CAC Case No. 101131, Boursorama SA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas; WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas). <\/span><\/p>\n

        According to the Complainant, the Respondent must have known about the Complainant and Its rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

        The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.<\/span><\/p>\n

        The Complainant adds that past Panels have decided that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows and WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).<\/span><\/p>\n

        Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and uses because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. Please see for instance CAC Case No. 102827, <\/em>JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono.<\/span><\/p>\n

        <\/p>\n

        RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

        No administratively Complaint Response has been filed.<\/span><\/p>", "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 UDRP).<\/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 name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP).<\/p>", "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 UDRP).<\/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": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Radim Charvát" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

        The Complainant is the owner of the following European Union trademark (hereinafter “EUTM”) registration:<\/span><\/p>\n

          \n
        • EUTM “BOURSORAMA” No. 001758614 for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification, with a filing date on July 13, 2000, and registration date on October 10, 2001.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          The Complainant proved its ownership of the aforementioned trademark registration by the submitted extract from the WIPO Trademark Register.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "boursorama-soutien.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }