{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106691", "time_of_filling": "2024-07-12 13:49:35", "domain_names": [ "contact-bforbk.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BFORBANK" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Murielle Tidonni" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that it is an online bank launched in October 2009 by “Crédit Agricole Regional Banks”.<\/p>\n

The Complainant offers daily banking, savings, investment and credit (consumer and real estate) services and claims to employ 400 employees and serve 230 000 clients.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on March 28, 2024 and is inactive. MX servers are configured.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the deletion of the letters “AN” and the addition of the generic term “CONTACT” in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to its “BFORBANK” trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also contends that the addition of the suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation.<\/p>\n

The Complainant refers to previous UDRP decisions that recognized the similarity of a domain name sharing the same structure as the disputed domain name, with the Complainant’s trademark, in particular CAC Case No. 106444<\/strong> (<bforbk-contact.com>).<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

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

Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page and the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name. This confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

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

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark by the Complainant, which has established a strong reputation while using this trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant provides “Google” search results as a separate annex and such search results are related to the Complainant and its clients’ interface. 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.<\/p>\n

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

The Complainant relies on the “passive holding” doctrine and previous UDRP decisions where panels held that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n

The fact that “MX” servers are configured, in the Complainant’s view, indicates that the disputed domain name may be actively used for e-mail purposes, and this is an additional indication of bad faith.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant states the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/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's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/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>", "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>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registration:<\/p>\n