{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106277",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-02-20 10:15:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "bursoram.site"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOURSORAMA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Iliasse Loukili"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant has three core businesses - online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, and has over 6 million customers in France. It operates the domain name &lt;boursorama.com&gt;, registered on 1 March 1998. The Complainant&rsquo;s online portal at www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information website and the first online banking platform in France.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name &lt;bursoram.site&gt; was registered on 16 February 2024. It resolves to a parking webpage and has mail exchange (&ldquo;MX&rdquo;) servers configured for it.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its BOURSORAMA trademark, because it represents an obvious misspelling of the same trademark, created through the deletion of the letters &ldquo;o&rdquo; and &ldquo;a&rdquo;, which is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as it is not commonly known under it and is not affiliated to the Complainant, who has not given any authorization to the Respondent to use the BOURSORAMA trademark. The Complainant adds that the fact that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOURSORAMA cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests, and notes that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name, as it is inactive.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, its BOURSORAMA trademark is distinctive and well-known, so the Respondent must have known it when it registered the disputed domain name, which is intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the same trademark. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name and that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of it 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&rsquo;s rights under trademark law. Finally, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes, and any e-mail messages emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<br \/><br \/><\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Assen Alexiev"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner of the European Union trademark BOURSORAMA with registration No.001758614, registered on 19 October 2001 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (the &ldquo;BOURSORAMA trademark&rdquo;).<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "bursoram.site": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}