FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The BOLLORE group (the Complainant) was founded in 1822. Thanks to a diversification strategy based on innovation and international development, it now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines: Transportation and Logistics, Communication, and Industry (please see their website at: www.bollore.com).<\/p>\n
It is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, the majority interest of the Group's stock is always controlled by the Bolloré family. This stable majority control of its capital allows the Group to develop a long-term investment policy. In addition to its activities, the Group manages a number of financial assets including plantations and financial investments.<\/p>\n
Its subsidiary BOLLORE LOGISTICS is a global leader in international transport and logistics. With a presence in 146 countries and more than 15,000 employees, BOLLORE LOGISTICS is committed to delivering reliable, flexible innovative and value-creating solutions (please see for more information at www.bollore-logistics.com).<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns and communicates on Internet through various domain names, such as <bollore-logistics.com> registered since January 20, 2009.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <bollorelogisticsltd.com> was registered on September 7, 2023.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”. The Complainant asserts that the addition of the acronym “LTD” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain name associated. 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”.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant contends the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademarks of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name<\/p>\n
The Complainant 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. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Finally, the disputed domain name resolves to an error page. Thus, the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name since its registration. Past panels have held that the lack of use of a domain name is considered as an important indicator of the absence of legitimate interests by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
3. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS”. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to an error 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. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
MX servers are configured which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes.<\/p>\n
Thus, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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 have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademarks including the wording “BOLLORE LOGISTICS” in several countries, such as the international trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS” no. 1025892 registered since July 31, 2009, and the international trademark “BOLLORE LOGISTICS” no. 1302823 registered since January 27, 2016.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "bollorelogisticsltd.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }