The Complainants has three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet, and online banking. 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 the first French online banking platform.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording “BOURSORAMA”, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since 1998.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2024, and resolves 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 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”.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark BOURSORAMA (i.e. the addition of the letter “I”) is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain name associated.<\/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 known 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. <\/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
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “BOURSORAMA”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Besides, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark “BOURSORAMA”. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, 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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark, “BOURSORAMA”.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/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 domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark “BOURSORAMA” was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a 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": "
<\/p>\n
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable to provide the Decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns European trademark for “BOURSORAMA” n° 1758614, registered on 26 November 2001.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "bouirsorama.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }