{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105603", "time_of_filling": "2023-07-10 08:57:11", "domain_names": [ "assistance-boursorama.info" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "roger" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span>

The Complainant points out that it is a company in the field of online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.<\/span>

The Complainant states that, in France, it has over 4.9 million customers as regards online banking and that its portal is the first national financial and economic information website and the first French online banking platform.<\/span>

The Complainant submits that is the owner of several registrations for the trademark BOURSORAMA.<\/span>

The Complainant underlines that it owns a number of domain names including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998.<\/span>

The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name was registered on June 30, 2023.<\/span>

The Complainant observes that the disputed domain name is inactive.<\/span>

The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA because it includes in its entirety the trademark, and the addition of the generic term “ASSISTANCE” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSORAMA. The Complainant adds that the addition of that generic term and of the generic top-level domain \".INFO\", does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA and does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark.<\/span>

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/span>

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 adds that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/span>

The Complainant clarifies that 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

The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, and adds that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.

The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark BOURSORAMA, and that, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/span>

The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/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´s contentions are summarised above.<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/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 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": "

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding is the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n

In the present case, the language of the Registration Agreement is French. However, the Complainant requests that the language of the administrative proceeding in this case is English, even if it would accept to change it to French.<\/p>\n

The Respondent was notified by the CAC in both English and French.<\/p>\n

Similarly to the approach taken by other panels in similar circumstances (see for example CAC case No. 104654), the Panel has considered:<\/p>\n

(a) that English is a common business language;<\/p>\n

(b) the supranational character of the top-level domain; <\/p>\n

(c) that translating the Complaint and the annexes would cause significant expenses and delay while the Respondent is not participating in this proceeding; and<\/p>\n

(d) that the Panel would have accepted a Response not only in English, but also in the language of the Registration Agreement.<\/p>\n

In line with other panels (see for example CAC case No. 104584), the Panel finds that the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for this case. Indeed, the Respondent has been given the opportunity to present its case in this proceeding and to respond formally to the issue of the language of the proceeding.<\/p>\n

In the light of the above, the Panel, exercising its powers under paragraph 11 of the Rules, decides that the language of this administrative proceeding will be English.<\/p>\n

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": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registrant of the EU trademark registration No. 1758614 “Boursorama\", registered on October 19, 2001, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42.<\/span>

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on June 30, 2023.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "assistance-boursorama.info": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }