{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105456", "time_of_filling": "2023-05-25 11:44:43", "domain_names": [ "gestion-brsrma.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Jean Gabin" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

According to the information provided by the registrar the disputed domain name <<\/em>gestion-brsrma.com> <\/strong>was registered on 13 February 2023.

The disputed domain name redirects to a pay-per-click parking page with commercial links.<\/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

According to the information provided Complainant is a financial services company, including online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.  <\/p>\n

According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates six letters of the BOURSORAMA trademark (i.e. “BRSRMA”) as the respective initial elements. “BRSRMA\" is the only element of the disputed domain name which is not a dictionary word. \"BRSRMA\" is the main and most obviously recognizable source identification element of the disputed domain name. The generic term “gestion” refers to Complainant’s services. Coupled with the abbreviation of the trademark in the circumstances of this case the resulting disputed domain name is not sufficiently distinguished from Complainant’s trademark and does not avoid confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent is not known by Complainant. Complainant also contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by  Complainant in any way. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Finally, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. According to Complainant the disputed domain name has been registered for a phishing scheme which cannot be a bona fide or legitimate purpose<\/p>\n

According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings, considering that the disputed domain name is connected to a website that is used to impersonate Complainant. It is likely that the main purpose of  Respondent is to use the disputed domain name for “phishing” financial information in an attempt to defraud Complainant’s customers for commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name to fraudulently phish for information is evidence of bad faith. 

RESPONDENT:

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "rights": "

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 Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": "

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": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-20 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of European Union trademark BOURSORAMA with number 001758614 and registration date 19 October 2001. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "gestion-brsrma.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }