The Complainant is an online bank launched in October 2009 by the Crédit Agricole Regional Banks. The Complainant offers daily banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services. It counts over 230 000 clients and around 400 employees.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording “BFORBANK”, such as the domain name <bforbank.com>, registered since January 16, 2009.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on May 17, 2024 and redirects to a parking page with commercial links.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
A. The disputed domain name is 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 prior trademark “BFORBANK”.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the Complainant asserts that the deletion of the letters “AN” and the addition of the generic term “CLIENTS” 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 trademark “BFORBANK”. 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
Besides, the abbreviation “BK” stands as an abbreviation for “BANK”.<\/p>\n
Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
B. 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 Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that 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
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
Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
C. The disputed domain name was 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 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.<\/p>\n
Moreover, most results of a Google search of the term “BFORBK CLIENTS” refer to the Complainant, and notably to its clients’ interface.<\/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 Complainant's rights in the trademark.<\/p>\n
Besides, the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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 have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BFORBANK, such as the European trademark n°8335598 registered since 2009.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "bforbk-clients.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }