FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant, Boursorama, is a French company that is a pioneer and leader in its three core business areas: online brokerage, online financial information, and online banking. The Complainant has close to 5 million customers in France for online banking, making it the point of reference in the market for this service nationally.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has adduced evidence to show that the disputed domain name resolves to a test web page generated by the Respondent’s internet service provider.<\/p>\n
ADDITIONAL PERTINENT FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES REVEALED TO THE PANEL FROM THE CASE FILE AND ITS SUBSEQUENT INQUIRIES UNDER THE PANEL’S GENERAL POWERS<\/p>\n
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSO and domain names associated with it. Indeed, the domain name includes this trademark in its entirety. The Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term \"AUTHENTY\" is not sufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSO. 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”. Moreover, 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 BOURSO or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain names. Finally, many UDRP decisions have also confirmed the Complainant’s rights such as WIPO Case No. D2022-3936, BOURSORAMA S.A. v. Laetitia Dramais, bourso pret immo <bourso-pret-immo.com> and CAC Case No. 104986, BOURSORAMA SA v. Didier Jore <supportbourso.com>.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that it is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. 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. Nor is the Respondent known to or affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a test page. The Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name, and it affirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. This proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, whose purpose is instead to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
With its 4.9 million customers, BOURSORAMA is the French online banking reference. The disputed domain name includes the well-known and distinctive trademark BOURSO as confirmed by the decision WIPO Case No. D2022-4646 Boursorama S.A. v. Ibraci Links, Ibraci Links SAS (“On the balance of the probabilities, the Panel determines that Respondent was aware of Complainant and its BOURSO trademark, and targeted that mark when registering the Domain Name …. Complainant’s BOURSO mark is well established”). On those facts, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. The disputed domain name <bourso-authenty.com> resolves to a test page. 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. Based on this information, previous panels have held that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity may be sufficient to create a presumption of bad faith. In addition, the domain name is not used or does not indicate any information about a development project. Such a practice, defined in many previous decisions as \"passive holding\", is considered as a bad faith use. On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant failed in its contentions adequately to show the disputed domain name to be 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). However, the Case File as a whole, together with consequent inquiries made by the Panel under its general powers, disclosed sufficient circumstances to enable the Panel to ascertain that confusing similarity was indeed present.<\/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 Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant failed in its contentions adequately to show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy). However, the Case File as a whole, together with consequent inquiries made by the Panel under its general powers, disclosed sufficient circumstances to enable the Panel to ascertain that bad faith was indeed present.<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and that there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n
The Panel notes that:<\/p>\n
(1) as indicated under Factual Background, it exercised its general powers under Paragraph 10 of the Rules to check certain of the Respondent's registration details during the Panel's scrutiny of the Case File;<\/p>\n
(2) in its résumé of the Parties' contentions, citation of some Decisions of past Panels contained in the Amended Complaint has not been repeated because those Decisions add little to the essential elements of the case, whereas others that are pertinent to the present Decision have been repeated in full;<\/p>\n
(3) the Complainant made a procedural contention that it needed only make a prima facie case regarding the Respondent's lack of rights or a legitimate interest. The Panel considers this contention to warrant no consideration in this uncontested case but notes that the circumstances of this case required, by contrast, consideration of the whole Case File;<\/p>\n
(4) the Panel observes that the Complainant failed to substantiate its case sufficiently in its contentions regarding the factual circumstances of this proceeding in particular. Nevertheless, references in the Complaint to certain Decisions of past Panels (namely, WIPO Decision BOURSORAMA S.A. contre Laetitia Dramais, bourso pret immo No. D2022-3936 and CAC-UDRP-104986 <supportbourso.com> (2022)) supplied considerations which assisted the Panel to perform a closer examination of pertinent factors that also apply in this case.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Kevin Madders" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-07-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant relies on the following French trademark, for which it has adduced evidence of registration and validity: No. 3009973 \"BOURSO\", registered on 22 February 2000 in Nice Classification List classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.<\/p>\n
According to proof adduced by the Complainant, the Complainant is the registrant of the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered on 1 March 1998, and of the domain name <bourso.com>, registered on 11 January 2000.<\/p>\n
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <bourso-authenty.com> on 24 May 2023, according to the Registrar Verification obtained by the CAC Case Administrator.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "bourso-authenty.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }