{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106444", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-12 13:32:45", "domain_names": [ "bforbk-contact.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BFORBANK" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Todd Reagor (Bitcoinwebhosting.net)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording “BFORBANK”, such as the domain name <bforbank.com>, registered since 16 January 2009 (proved by Whois Information for <bforbank.com>).<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <bforbk-contact.com> (hereinafter “disputed domain name”) was registered on 8 April 2024 as it is apparent from submitted Whois Information for the disputed domain name. According to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘Todd Reagor’. The Respondent’s provided address as being at Edmond, United States.<\/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

A. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior trademark “BFORBANK”.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the deletion of the letters “AN” and the addition of the generic term “CONTACT”, referring to the Complainant’s contact information, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark “BFORBANK”. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s “BFORBANK” trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain name associated.<\/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

<\/p>\n

B. The Complainant states that 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 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 states that the Respondent is not known by the Complainant. 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

The Complainant adds that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “BFORBANK” or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page (submitted copy of the website under the disputed domain name). 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

<\/p>\n

C. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been 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 “BFORBANK”.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark “BFORBANK” by the Complainant, which has established a strong reputation while using this trademark. Indeed, the Complainant is well known, “BFORBANK” offers daily banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services for more than 230 000 customers (provided copy of the website about the Complainant).<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that most results of a Google search of the term “BFORBK CONTACT” refer to the Complainant, and notably to its contact information (furnished copy of the Google search results).<\/p>\n

Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the trademark.<\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page (copy of the website under the disputed domain name). 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>\n

Finally, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records (copy of the DNS Query) which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

No administratively Complaint Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Radim Charvát" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registration:<\/span><\/p>\n