{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105787", "time_of_filling": "2023-09-15 09:50:55", "domain_names": [ "bourso-pro.finance" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA " ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "FinRedac" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, BOURSORAMA S.A., was founded in 1995 and it deals with online financial products as its core business, in particular, with online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of trademark BOURSO as well as domain names including said trademark, registered before the date of registration of the disputed domain name, which is September 9, 2023.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is currently inactive.<\/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:<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <bourso-pro.finance> <\/strong>is confusingly similar to its trademark “BOURSO” since it includes the trademark in its entirety. The Complainant claims that the addition of the generic term “PRO” is not sufficient to avoid the finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.finance” does not change the overall impression and it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its relevant domain names.The Complainant refers to the F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, where it was stated that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also refers to the earlier UDRP decisions it obtained before CAC such as CAC Case No. 105572 (BOURSORAMA v. Didier Jore<\/em> <bbourso-contact.com>) and CAC Case No. 104986 (Boursorama SA v. Didier Jore<\/em> <supportbourso.com>).<\/p>\n

Consequently, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <bourso-pro.finance> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “BOURSO”.<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME(S);<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and that this was considered by the past panels before as being not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Also, the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant states that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, as well as no authorization or license was given to the Respondent by the Complainant in order to make any use of the Complainant’s “BOURSO” trademark including using and registering as domain name. The Complainant also claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The Complainant asserts that Respondent has not made any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and that it confirms the fact that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that it shows a lack of legitimate interests regarding the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name <bourso-pro.finance>.<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the term “BOURSO” has no meaning except in relation to the Complainant. Moreover, it was claimed that the association of the trademark “BOURSO” with the new GTLD “.FINANCE” cannot be coincidental, as this term directly refers to the Complainant’s banking activities. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <bourso-pro.finance.info> includes the Complainant's well-known and distinctive trademark “BOURSO”. Thus, it is stated that given the reputation of the Complainant's trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent, who is a French company, has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also indicates that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page and the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name. It is also asserted by the Complainant that 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, an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law, or an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website. The following prior WIPO UDRP panels were provided as examples, where it was held that 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