The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant was founded in 1822. It now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines, Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, the majority interest of the Group's stock is always controlled by the Bolloré family. The BOLLORE Group has more than 56,000 employees world-wide with the revenue that equals to 20,667 million euros, operating income in the amount of 1,502 million euros and the shareholders' equity in the amount of 36,568 million euros based on the results in 2022.<\/p>\n The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE. Indeed, the disputed domain names contain an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n The addition of terms “desarler” or “desarme” with the trademark BOLLORE is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. It is well-established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP. (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888).<\/span><\/p>\n The addition of the gTLD “.NET” 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 names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated (WIPO Case No. D2006-0451). Finally, past panels confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the term “BOLLORE” (CAC Case No. 105501, CAC Case No. 105274, CAC Case No. 104590).<\/p>\n The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names. 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 names.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 names. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, neither licence 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 names by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, the disputed domain names point 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.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE is well-known and distinctive, and the Complainant is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE (CAC Case No. 102015; CAC Case No. 101696).<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the disputed domain names point to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2018-0497).<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, the Respondent is known in such pattern of conduct - WIPO Case No. D2024-2158 Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Transure Enterprise Ltd (\"the Panel notes that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to a webpage displaying PPC links related to tires redirecting towards entities unrelated to Complainant [...] The Complainant has demonstrated a pattern of bad faith conduct from the Respondent side regarding several proceedings brought under the UDRP (see Dollar Bank, Federal Savings Bank v. Above.com Domain Privacy \/ Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2016-0700).<\/em>\")<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n Consequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [
"Petr Hostaš"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-10-22 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant (BOLLORE SE) is the owner of several trademarks including the term “BOLLORE”, such as the international trademark registration BOLLORE n° 704697. The Complainant also owns and communicates on the Internet through various domain names, the main one being <bollore.com>, registered on July 24, 1997. <\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain names <<\/span>desarler<\/span>bollore.net> and <desarmebollore.net> have been registered on September 11, 2024.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"desarlerbollore.net": "TRANSFERRED",
"desarmebollore.net": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}