The Complainant, BOURSORAMA, operating under the name BOURSOBANK, 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, BOURSORAMA based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency. In France, BOURSORAMA is the online banking reference with nearly 7,6 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
<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark BOURSOBANK n° 1757984 registered since August 28, 2023.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSOBANK, such as the domain name <boursobank.com>, registered since November 23rd, 2005.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <boursobank.contact> (hereinafter, the „Disputed Domain Name“) was registered on July 23rd, 2025 and it is inactive. Besides, MX servers are configured.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Registrar of the Disputed Domain Name confirmed that the Respondent is the current Registrant, and that English is the language of the registration agreement.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The facts asserted by the Complaint are not contested by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
First element: Confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to its trademark “BOURSOBANK®” and the domain name associated therewith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.CONTACT” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOURSOBANK. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain names.<\/p>\n
Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n
The Complainant indicates that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the Disputed Domain Name. In accordance with Complainant’s allegations, 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, Complainant argues that the Respondent is not known as 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 BOURSOBANK or apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Disputed Domain Name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the Disputed Domain Name or has no demonstrable plan to use it.<\/p>\n
Third element: The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark BOURSOBANK.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that it and its trademark BOURSOBANK have a significant reputation in France and abroad in connection with online financial services. To this end, the Complainant states that several experts confirmed the reputation of its trademark BOURSOBANK and provided as a reference the WIPO Case No. D2024-5075. The Complainant contends that, 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 trademarks.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name points to an inactive page. 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 Disputed 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. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, 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
Finally, the Disputed Domain Name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/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": [ "Victor Garcia Padilla" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-09-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the International trademark BOURSOBANK n° 1757984 at classes 09, 16, 35, 36, 38 & 41 registered since August 28, 2023.<\/p>\n
In addition, the Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSOBANK such as the domain name <boursobank.com>, registered since November 23rd, 2005.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "boursobank.contact": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }