{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106467", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-18 17:23:06", "domain_names": [ "bousorama-group.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "pascal tchibozo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

BOURSORAMA (the Complainant) grows in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online. Pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, the Complainant based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency. In France, the Complainant is the online banking reference with over 6 million customers. The portal www.boursorama.com is the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.<\/span><\/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": "

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>\n

Complainant's contentions in brief.<\/p>\n

A. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark BOURSORAMA and its domain names associated. <\/p>\n

The omission of the letter “R” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods BOURSORAMA.<\/p>\n

The addition of the generic term “GROUP” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSORAMA.<\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant’s rights over the term “BOURSORAMA” have been confirmed by previous panels (for instance WIPO Case No. D2022-3717, Boursorama S.A. v. Navez <mon-compte-boursorama.com>; CAC Case No. 103167, BOURSORAMA SA v. Claude Adler <bousorama-recover.link>).<\/p>\n

B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/p>\n

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 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

C. The disputed domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith. <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name includes the well-known and distinctive trademark BOURSORAMA, the well-known character of BOURSORAMA is confirmed among other in the decisions: <\/p>\n

-    CAC Case No. 101131, <\/span>BOURSORAMA v. PD Host Inc - Ken Thomas (“In the case at hand, the Respondent acted in bad faith especially because the Respondent, who has no connection with the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark, registered a domain name, which incorporates the well-known \"BOURSORAMA\" trademark and it is totally unrealistic to believe that the Respondent did not know the Complainant's trademark when registered the domain name <wwwboursorama.com>.”);<\/em>
-    WIPO Case No. D2017-1463, <\/span>Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas (“Given the circumstances of the case including the evidence on record of the longstanding of use of the Complainant's trademark, and the distinctive nature of the mark BOURSORAMA, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark.”).<\/em><\/p>\n

On those facts, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name resolves to a website template. 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

<\/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 Policy).<\/p>\n

This is a case of adding a generic term - in this case \"group\" and omitting one letter \"R\"- to\/from a well-known trademark and in respect of the well-established practice that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar, it is found that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant´s well-known trademark BOURSORAMA.<\/span><\/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>\n

Given the circumstances of the case, including the provided information of the use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA and the distinctive nature of this mark, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website template. The Panel finds that it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. The Panel finds that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity is sufficient to create a presumption of bad faith. <\/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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Lars Karnoe" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks being or containing BOURSORAMA such as: 
-    The European trademark BOURSORAMA, n°001758614, registered since October 19, 2001; 
-    The French trademark BOURSORAMA BANQUE, n°3676762, registered since September 16, 2009. <\/p>\n

The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain names <boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998 and <boursoramabanque.com>, registered since May 26, 2005.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on April 17, 2024, and resolves to a website template. <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "bousorama-group.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }