The Complainant is a pioneering online financial services company based in France, known for its online brokerage, financial information portal, and online banking services. Operating under the brand Boursorama (recently also referred to as BoursoBank), the Complainant has grown substantially since its founding in 1995. It is recognized as a leader in online banking in France, serving millions of customers (over 7 million by 2025) and operating the popular financial portal under the domain name <boursorama.com>.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations for BOURSORAMA, including an European Union trademark No. 1758614 for BOURSORAMA (filed July 13, 2000, registered October 19, 2001).<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns various domain names incorporating its distinctive “BOURSO\/BOURSORAMA” mark, such as <boursorama.com> (registered March 1, 1998) and <bourso.com> (registered January 11, 2000).<\/p>\n
The present dispute concerns two domain names: <societe-boursorama.com> and <societe-boursorama.net> (the “Disputed Domain Names”), both registered on November 2, 2025. The Disputed Domain Names are not being used for any active website or content.<\/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 Names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n
Notably, the Complainant contends that:<\/p>\n
(a) The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is reproduced in its entirety. The addition of “societe” followed by a hyphen is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the gTLDs \".com\" and \".net\" does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not obtained any authorization from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark as part of the Disputed Domain Names or otherwise. The Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Names. Moreover, the Disputed Domain Names are not being used in relation to a bona fide offering of goods or services and the Respondent is not making legitimate or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to inactive pages. The Respondent has not made any use of the Disputed Domain Names since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use them. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>\n
(c) Both the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names establish the Respondent’s bad faith. The Respondent obviously knew the prior rights of the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Names resolve to pages with no activity and amount to passive holding, which evidences bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
The Complainant requests transfer of the Disputed Domain Names.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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": [ "Ganna Prokhorova" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
European Union trademark No. 1758614 for BOURSORAMA (filed July 13, 2000, registered October 19, 2001)<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "societe-boursorama.com": "TRANSFERRED", "societe-boursorama.net": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }