{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108821", "time_of_filling": "2026-07-09 10:47:52", "domain_names": [ "boursolink.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOURSORAMA" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Severus KEY" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant 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, it based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency. In France, it 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 first French online banking platform, with over 41.5 million visits each month.<\/span><\/p>\n

B. <\/strong><\/span>Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is Severus KEY, based at the address of pahou 12, Cotonou, Zou, Postal Code 00000, Benin. The disputed domain name was registered on July 3, 2026 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. The disputed domain name redirects to a page in Portuguese featuring the BOURSORAMA trademark, with the aim of offering banking services.<\/span><\/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": "

A. Complainant<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n

I. <\/span><\/strong>The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's trademark in its entirety. The addition of the generic term \"link\" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the 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”.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the grounds: i) the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant; ii) the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent; iii) neither license 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 name; iv) the disputed domain name points to a competitor’s website by displaying the Complainant’s trademark, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.<\/span><\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> <\/span>The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: i) its trademark BOURSO has a significant reputation in France and abroad in connection with online financial services. Several experts have confirmed the reputation of the BOURSO trademark; ii) the disputed domain name redirects to a website displaying the Complainant’s BOURSORAMA trademark. It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks; iii) the use of the disputed domain name to redirect consumers to competing goods or services can be evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy 4(b)(iv).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. <\/span><\/p>\n

B.<\/strong> <\/span>RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/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 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": [ "Yunze Lian" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the trademarks BOURSO and BOURSORAMA:<\/span><\/p>\n