{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108368", "time_of_filling": "2026-02-03 10:16:36", "domain_names": [ "boursobank-antifraude.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "mario balloteli" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant with eight million customers in France operates a portal at www.boursorama.com<\/a>, the first national financial and economic information site and first French online banking platform.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <boursobank-antifraude.com> <\/strong>was registered on January 21st<\/sup>, 2026 and resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s mark in its logo form as a masthead.<\/p>\n

 <\/strong><\/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 <\/b><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows<\/p>\n

A. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark BOURSOBANK and its associated domain names. Indeed, the trademark BOURSOBANK is entirely contained within it.<\/p>\n

The addition of the generic term “ANTIFRAUDE” (meaning “ANTI-FRAUD” in French) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSOBANK. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It is well-established that <\/em>a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP.<\/p>\n

The addition of the suffix “.COM” 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

Thus, the disputed domain <\/strong>name is <\/strong>confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/strong>B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

 The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie<\/em> case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a prima facie<\/em> case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.<\/p>\n

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 owner of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. 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 licence 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 resolved to a page displaying the Complainant’s mark in its logo form as a masthead. This page may be used for the purpose of collecting personal information from the Complainant's customers.  This use cannot be considered a bona fide<\/em> offer of services or a legitimate use of domain names, since the website misleads consumers into believing that they are accessing the Complainant's website. <\/p>\n

 <\/strong>Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/strong><\/p>\n

C. The domain name <\/em>was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant and its trademark BOURSOBANK have a significant reputation in France and abroad in connection with online financial services. <\/p>\n

 The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s mark in its logo form as a masthead.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n

Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial purposes, internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website. In addition, the Respondent may collect personal information through this website, including passwords.<\/p>\n

Using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate the Complainant to create confusion as to the source or affiliation of competing content in order to conduct a phishing campaign is evidence of bad faith under the Policy. <\/p>\n