FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is an online bank launched in October 2009 by the Crédit Agricole Regional Banks. The Complainant offers daily banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services for 240 000 customers.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the European trademark “BFORBANK® n°8335598 registered since June 2nd<\/sup>, 2009 and the Complainant owns the domain name <bforbank.com> registered since January 16th<\/sup>, 2009.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <web-beforbank-fr.site<\/strong>> was registered on June 2nd<\/sup>, 2023 (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”).<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website.<\/p>\n According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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: The Complainant indicates that the additions are coupled with a clear case of \"typosquatting<\/em>“; in particular taking into consideration that the Disputed Domain Name contains obvious misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark (i.e.<\/em> the addition of an “E”).<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.SITE” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known as the Disputed Domain Name at the Whois database.<\/p>\n Additionally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent 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.<\/p>\n Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BFORBANK® or apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant also claims that the Disputed Domain Name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BFORBANK® and the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of Disputed Domain Name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the Disputed Domain Name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n Third element: Bad faith The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name several years after the registration of the trademark BFORBANK® by the Complainant, which it has established a strong reputation while using this trademark for online banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services for 240 000 customers and all the results of a search for the terms “WEB-BEFORBANK-FR” refers to the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the misspelling and the addition of the terms “WEB” and “FR” were intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the Disputed Domain Name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name is inactive. 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 Disputed 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.<\/p>\n 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 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 Name (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 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": [
"Victor Garcia Padilla"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-07-18 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the European trademark “BFORBANK n° 8335598 filed on June 2nd<\/sup>, 2009 and registered on December 12th<\/sup>, 2009.<\/p>\n The Complainant also owns the domain name <bforbank.com> registered since January 16th<\/sup>, 2009.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"web-beforbank-fr.site": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.
The facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
First element: Similarity
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark “BFORBANK®“.
The Complainant asserts that the addition of the terms “WEB” and “FR”, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark BFORBANK®. On the contrary, the association of the terms “WEB” and “FR” (meaning \"FRANCE\") with the trademark worsens the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n
Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademark BFORBANK®.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT
Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>",
"rights": "