FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that it is a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that its online banking business in France has over three (3) million customers and operates the first French online banking platform.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on August 25, 2023. It resolves to a website in French with content related to the Complainant and also contains some links unrelated to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and is an example of typosquatting.<\/p>\n
The domain name is composed of terms “ONLINE DASHBOARD” and a typosquatted version of \"BOURSORAMA\" - “BORSORAMA”. The Complainant refers to previous UDRP decisions that found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The <.online> gTLD is not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity as it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
Thus, the Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database by the disputed domain name, is not related or affiliated in any way with the Complainant and 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, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in a way that fails to confer rights and legitimate interests, as it redirects to a French content related to the Complainant and is also used to promote unrelated services.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the UDRP can be summarized as follows:
1. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark “BOURSORAMA”. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
2. The Complainant states that the misspelling of the “BOURSORAMA” mark by the Respondent was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have considered such actions as evidence of bad faith.
3. The Complainant contends that the Respondent uses its trademark “BOURSORAMA” to promote unrelated services. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Complainant. <\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/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": "
The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section 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": "
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": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registration:
- The EU trademark registration No. 001758614 “BOURSORAMA” (word), registered on October 19, 2001, filed on July 13, 2000.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also refers to various domain names that incorporate the “BOURSORAMA” trademark, including <boursorama.com>, registered since February 28, 1998.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "onlinedashboardborsorama.online": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }