The Complainant is Bollore SA of Ergue Gaberic, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0141407888 of Toronto, Canada / Pastel nathaniel karl-loic of Seine-Saint-Denis, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 25, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 26, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 26, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on November 30, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 20, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 23, 2015.
The Center appointed Alexandre Nappey as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Founded in 1822, the Bolloré Group is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, the majority interest of the Group’s stock is always controlled by the Bolloré family. This stable majority control of its capital allows the Group to develop a long-term investment policy.
Thanks to a diversification strategy based on innovation and on international development, it now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines, Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions.
In addition to its activities, the Group manages a number of financial assets including plantations and financial investments.
The Complainant is the owner of many trademarks “Bolloré” such as: Country Trademark Registration number Registration Date Classes
International
BOLLORÉ
704697
August 14, 1992
16,17,34,35,36,38,39
International
BOLLORE
595172
December 11, 1998
16,17,34,35,36,38,39
Europe
BOLLORÉ
1021963
December 18, 1998
16,17,34,35,36,38,39
France
BOLLORÉ
98739779
July 1, 1998
16,17,34,35,36,38,39
The Complainant owns and communicates on the Internet through various websites, among which “”, but the Complainant has also registered numerous domain names similar to trademark “BOLLORE”.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 26, 2015. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark since it incorporates in its entirety the trademark BOLLORÉ.
According to the Complainant, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” does not avoid the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and other intellectual property rights.
With respect to right and legitimate interest, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Complainant. No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
The disputed domain name points to a website in French offering credit services under the name BOLLORE CREDIT, but the Complainant claims that there is no company registered under that business name, or at the address displayed in the WhoIs database. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to attract consumers through the notoriety of the Complainant’s mark.
Last, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent who has no connection whatsoever to the Complainant, sought to take advantage of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known BOLLORÉ trademark, for commercial advantage and/or to disrupt the Complainant’s business. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains up to the Complainant to make out its case in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and to demonstrate that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.
Having consideration to the parties’ contentions, the Policy, Rules, Supplemental Rules and applicable substantive law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above mentioned elements are the following. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns exclusive trademark rights on the name BOLLORÉ, which predate the registration of the disputed domain name, especially in France where the parties are established.
The disputed domain name merely adds the combination of descriptive word “credits” to the BOLLORÉ trademark.
The Panel finds that the word “credits” added to the trademark does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark.
As ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc v. Kuchora, Kal,WIPO Case No. D2006-0033,“if a domain name incorporates a complainant’s mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words.”
For instance, previous UDRP panels have ruled that the addition of words like “credits” or descriptive suffixes to a trademark in a domain name is not sufficient to dispel confusing similarity:
In Docler IP S.àr;l, Duodecad IT services Luxembourg S.àr.l, WebMindLicences Korlàtolt Felelösségu v. Domain Admin / Zoran Savic,WIPO Case No. D2015-1186 it has been ruled that: “(…) the term ‘freecredits’ is descriptive in nature and is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the disputed domain name is liable to suggest to Internet users that it relates to the Complainants’ website (…).”
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark of the Complainant.
Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademarks.
The Complainant further contends that the Complainant has no knowledge that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name or acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name resolves to an active website where the Respondent is promoting credit services. On the homepage footer are displayed company details that are not related to any incorporated French company.
The Respondent appears to have used the disputed domain name in connection with a credit-related and identity-theft scam, by impersonating the Complainant in an effort to obtain personal information from people that may be looking for loans and credit services online.
Even if the Complainant is not currently active in the area of banking and credit services, its name and trademark BOLLORÉ enjoys goodwill and reputation that lead Internet users to feel confident with the offers promoted on the website operated under the disputed domain name, and therefore be confused.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent was given the opportunity by way of reply to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. However, the Respondent did not file a Response nor avail itself of the benefits of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has created a risk of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name.
The Panel also finds that paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy applies since the Complainant presented evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of diverting Internet users based on the reputation and goodwill of the trademark BOLLORÉ.
The Complainant has produced evidence that the disputed domain name is used to operate a website promoting credit services, which clearly tries to confuse Internet users by using the Complainant’s trademark.
Although the exact nature of the scheme is not clearly determined on the basis of the evidence produced by the Complainant, it is obvious to this Panel that some fraudulent or criminal activity may have been conducted under the disputed domain name.
The impersonation or at least attempt to confuse the Internet users also shows that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
Given the evidence of use of the disputed domain name for a fraudulent purpose, the Panel readily concludes that it was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Alexandre Nappey
Sole Panelist
Date: February 3, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy