Complainant is a 100% online bank launched in October 2009 by the Crédit Agricole Regional Banks. 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 several trademarks BFORBANK and also a number of domain names, including the wording BFORBANK. <\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on June 29, 2023 and redirects to a parking page.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior trademark BFORBANK.<\/p>\n
The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark BFORBANK (i.e.<\/em> <\/span>the changing of the letter “K” by “C” in the trademark) is in the view of Complainant characteristic of a <\/span>typosquatting <\/span><\/em>practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n It does not in the view of the Complainant alter the phonetic similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark. <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the addition of the GTLD “.COM” 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 name associated.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database 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. Thus, in the view of the Complainant the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. 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, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BFORBANK. <\/span>Typosquatting<\/em> <\/span>is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BFORBANK.<\/p>\n The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark BFORBANK by the Complainant, which has established in the view of the Complainant a strong reputation while using this trademark. Indeed, the Complainant's contents he is well-known, <\/p>\n 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 Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark BFORBANK was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. <\/p>\n 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.<\/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": " 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": [
"Jan Schnedler"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-30 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BFORBANK, such as the European trademark n°8335598 registered since June 2, 2009.<\/p>\n The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the wording BFORBANK, such as the domain name <bforbank.com>, registered since January 16, 2009.<\/p>\n