The Complainant is Boursorama SA of Boulogne Billancourt, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Michael Sorenson of Los Angeles, California, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Eranet International Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 18, 2017. On September 18, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 19, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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 proceedings commenced on September 27, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 17, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 18, 2017.
The Center appointed Frank Schoneveld as the sole panelist in this matter on October 31, 2017. 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
In the absence of any contrary evidence or contention by the Respondent, the Panel accepts the following non-contested facts, evidence of which was provided by the Complainant:
- the Complainant is the registered holder of several trademarks for BOURSORAMA the oldest being registered since March 13, 1998 (French registration number 98723359).
- the Complainant is the registered holder of a number of domain names that include the same word "boursorama" as is included in the disputed domain name. Examples of such domain names are registered since March 1, 1998 and registered since June 3, 2005.
- the Complainant is, amongst other businesses, the bank "Boursorama Banque" with customers having accounts that can be accessed through the bank's official websites to which a number of the Complainant's registered domain names' devolve.
- The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 8, 2017.
- As of the date of the Complaint the website to which the disputed domain name resolved, continued to have content that was very similar to the webpage of the Complainant's website at "". In particular, it resolved to a login webpage that is almost exactly the same as that of the Complainant's bank's login webpage at the Complainant's website at "" that asks for login details and a password for the Internet user to access his/her account with the bank.
- A cease-and-desist letter was sent to the Respondent on September 13, 2017 to which the Respondent has not answered. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that it is a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses: online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, and that in France, Boursorama is the online banking reference with over 757,000 customers in late 2015. The Complainant states that its portal "www." is the first national financial and economic information site and online banking platform.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks and branded services BOURSORAMA. The Complainant asserts that use of the country code Top-Level-Domain ("ccTLD") ".cc" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademarks, and it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant's trademark BOURSORAMA, and does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and associated other domain names. The Complainant also contends that the term "boursorama" is a distinctive term, only known in relation to the Complainant and has no meaning whatsoever in English, French or in any other language.
The Complainant argues that it is only required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and once such prima facie case is made out, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complaint then submits that if the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied UDRP paragraph 4(a)(ii).
The Complainant contends that:
- given the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's rights in the trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, and registered it with the aim to create a website that diverts or deceives Internet users by using the Complainant's trademark.
- the Respondent is not known to the Complainant.
- the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, is not related in any way to the Complainant's business, and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
- the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, displays content very similar to the official website of the Complainant, showing a false account service connection page, showing that (i) this amounts to an intention to divert or deceive Internet users by using the Complainant's trademark, and (ii) use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and is thus a clear case of phishing.
- the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create a likelihood of confusion and trying to generate commercial gain, by using and displaying the Complainant's trademarks "and identity graphical guidelines" without any right or authorization.
- the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users into providing personal information so that it is not a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The Complainant asserts that the aim of the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name was to "grab banking information" of the Complainant's customers. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant states that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark BOURSORMA, and that he did so with the intention (i) of taking advantage of the Complainant's trademarks and the goodwill the Complainant had built up in its trademarks, and (ii) of unduly benefiting by diverting Internet users of the Complainant by pretending to be the official website of the Complainant.
The Complainant also argues that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is falsely associated with the Complainant, by displaying very similar content to that of the official website of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is attempting to pass himself off as the Complainant by using the Complainant's registered trademark in violation of the Policy. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and has used the disputed domain name to attract Internet users on his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to source, affiliation or endorsement, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and thus acted in bad faith. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to UDRP paragraph 4(a), in order to have a domain name transferred or cancelled the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The last part of the disputed domain name (".cc") is the ccTLD for the Cocos Islands. Except for this ccTLD the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark BOURSORAMA. It can be concluded then, as stated in UDRP paragraph 4(a)(i), that the disputed domain name is at least "confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights". The Panel finds that this first element is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The second element that the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. At section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") it is noted that numerous panels in previous cases have taken the approach that in general, "where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element." This Panel adopts this approach in these proceedings and refers to the cases listed at section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Complainant contends that there is no business by which the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or legitimate noncommercial or fair use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name. Neither has the Respondent had any business or other relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant shows that the Respondent is (a) using the disputed domain name and has since registration used the disputed domain name, in the words of the Complainant, to "grab banking information of the Complainant's customers" and (b) to display on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, content that is very similar to content on the official website of the Complainant so as to misleadingly divert Internet users. This diversion of Internet users is done to obtain confidential information about customers of the Complainant including their bank account login and password details to gain unauthorized access to such customers' bank accounts, with the intent for illegitimate commercial gain or otherwise to make illegitimate use of the information obtained.
The Panel concludes that the Complainant has established that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Respondent has failed to provide any evidence or submission suggesting otherwise. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the second element of UDRP paragraph 4(a) is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant shows that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name and has since registration used the disputed domain name, in the words of the Complainant, to "grab banking information of the Complainant's customers". This is done by displaying on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, content that is almost the same as the content on the official website of the Complainant at the domain name that asks for login and password details to access an account. The Respondent can then gather the login details and passwords of the Complainant's customers by asking the Internet user to input this information into the website to which the disputed domain name devolves. In this way the Internet user is deceived into disclosing such information to the Respondent when it would be believed that she/he is disclosing the information to the bank only. This is an illegitimate means of deceptively obtaining very sensitive commercial, private and confidential information about the Complainant's customers and their bank accounts.
Further, the use of the disputed domain name and the content of the website to which it devolves clearly creates confusion with the Complainant's trademark BOURSORAMA, as to the source or affiliation of the website to which the disputed domain name devolves.
The disputed domain name is being used to divert the Complainant's customers to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, and the content of this website is clearly designed to deceive Internet users into disclosing to the Respondent access information of the Complainant customers' bank accounts. Such use of the disputed domain name is, by itself, evidence that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of the above findings, and in the absence of any response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the third element of UDRP paragraph 4(a) is satisfied. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Frank Schoneveld
Sole Panelist
Date: November 8, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy