The Complainant, BFORBANK, is an online bank launched in October 2009 and is part of the Crédit Agricole group. It offers full banking services, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) to 230,000 customers and is growing fast.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BFORBANK, as the disputed domain name <bforbank.com>, registered since 16 January 2009.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <<\/em>bforblanc.com> <\/strong>was registered on 9 April 2024 and resolves to a parking page.<\/p>\n Nothing is known of the Respondent which appears from an online search to own a London nail salon. <\/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": " <\/b><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n The Complainant says the disputed domain name <bforblanc.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark, BFORBANK and is an obvious misspelling of that trademark BFORBANK. Here there is a substitution of the letter “K” in bank by the letters “L” and “C” for blanc. This it says is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Case No. D2020-3457, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Name Redacted <arcelormltal.com>).<\/p>\n It says that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name, has no licence or right from the Complainant and there are no other legitimate rights or interests.<\/p>\n It says the Respondent must have known of its distinctive mark and reputation, 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. Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that \"by using the domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on Respondent's website or location.\".<\/p>\n 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>\n The Respondent accessed the online case file but did not submit any contentions.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Victoria McEvedy"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the word mark, BFORBANK, a European trademark (EUTM) n°8335598 registered on 2 June 2009.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"bforblanc.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "