The Complainant is Boursorama SA of Boulogne Billancourt, France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Servant Yoann of Les Milles, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 7, 2015. On December 8, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted its verification response by email to the Center, 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 proceeding commenced on December 16, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 5, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 7, 2016.
The Center appointed Nathalie Dreyfus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 2016. 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
The Complainant, a corporation set up under the laws of France, was founded in 1995. It is active in the fields of online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. It continues to grow in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial products online. The Complainant counted more than 505,000 customers in 2013.
The Complainant owns, in particular, the following trademarks (the “Trademarks”) for many goods and services in connection with its services:
- The Community trademark BOURSORAMA No. 1758614 registered on October 19, 2001, and duly renewed thereafter on July 13, 2010.
- The French trademark BOURSORAMA No. 98723359 registered on March 13, 1998, and duly renewed thereafter on March 31, 2008.
- The French trademark BOURSORAMA No. 3565867 registered on March 31, 2008.
- The French trademark BOURSORAMA No. 3676765 registered on September 16, 2009.
The Complainant also owns, in particular, the following domain names:
- The domain name registered on March 1, 1998.
- The domain name registered on June 3, 2005.
- The domain name registered on July 12, 2000.
- The domain name registered on November 15, 2001.
- The domain name registered on May 26, 2005.
- The domain name registered on July 24, 2006.
- The domain name registered on February 20, 2007.
- The domain name registered on September 24, 1998.
- The domain name registered on March 19, 2014.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 7, 2009. At the time the Complaint was filed, the website at the Disputed Domain Name redirected to a parking page displaying sponsored links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant, a corporation set up under the laws of France, was founded in 1995 and asserts that it is a pioneer and leader in the fields of online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. The Complainant is a leader in the field of online banking, counting 505,000 customers in late 2013.
The Complainant asserts that is has registered several trademarks for the sign BOURSORAMA in a number of countries and several domain names incorporating the sign BOURSORAMA.
According to the Complainant, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademarks seeing that it incorporates the BOURSORAMA mark in its entirety and that the addition of a country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) such as “.me” does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Complainant has exclusive and prior rights in the BOURSORAMA trademarks and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Indeed, the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Disputed Domain Name redirects to a parking page displaying sponsored links.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and use the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. At the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and because it consists of the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Respondent had constructive knowledge of these trademarks. The Respondent has intentionally chosen the Disputed Domain Name based on the Complainant’s trademarks in order to disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Disputed Domain Name redirects to an inactive website which is evidence of bad faith registration and use.
For the foregoing reasons, the Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is therefore in default. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, as set out in paragraph 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), the consensus view of UDRP panelists is that a respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant. Although, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent’s default, paragraph 4 of the UDRP requires the complainant to support its assertions with actual evidence in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding.
In order to obtain the transfer of the Disputed Domain Names and according to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name;
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules:
“(a) In the event that a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any of the time periods established by these Rules or the Panel, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint.
(b) If a Party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, these Rules or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”.
The Panel finds that in this case there are no such exceptional circumstances. Consequently, failure on the part of the Respondent to file a response to the Complaint permits an inference that the Complainant’s reasonable allegations are true. It may also permit the Panel to infer that the Respondent does not deny the facts that the Complainant asserts (see Harrods Limited v. Harrod’s Closet,WIPO Case No. D2001-1027; see also Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
There are two parts to the inquiry under the first element of the Policy. The Complainant must first demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and secondly that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to such trademark.
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of a variety of registered trademarks for BOURSORAMA, including the examples cited in the Factual Background. The Panel therefore turns to the second part of the inquiry.
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” (see Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin,WIPO Case No. D2003-0888).
Here, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trademarks in their entirety without any other word or letter.
Regarding the addition of the ccTLD “.me” to the Disputed Domain Name, it is well-established that ccTLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Indeed, “a principle which applies to all the domain names is that the addition of gTLDs or country code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs) does not affect the confusing similarity or identity between the domain name and the trade mark(s) in issue. This has been clearly established from the beginning of the UDRP process, and now is no longer an issue. Thus, the addition of various types of gTLDs to the domain names (“.com”, “.net”) does not change the assessment of confusing similarity” (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The inclusion of the ccTLD “.me” is therefore inconsequential to determine similarities between the Disputed Domain Name and the Trademarks.
In these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists several ways in which the respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.
The consensus of previous decisions under the Policy is that a complainant may establish this element by making out a prima facie case, not rebutted by a respondent, that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out such a prima facie case.
The Respondent is not an authorized dealer, distributor or licensee of the Complainant and has been given no other permission from the Complainant to use the Trademarks.
The Respondent’s name does not bear any resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name nor is there any basis to conclude that the Respondent is commonly known by the Trademarks or the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use or is using such terms in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name in light of the Complainant’s evidence that the Respondent’s intention was to benefit from the Trademarks’ reputation to disrupt the Complainant’s business.
The Respondent has not rebutted this by way of a Response or otherwise and the way that the Respondent has been “using” the Disputed Domain Name, see below under section C, does not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests.
In all of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides four, non-exclusive, circumstances that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.
The Complainant has shown extensive and long use of the Trademarks and the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page displaying sponsored links.
In the Panel’s view, the Respondent most likely was aware of the Trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name since the Trademarks had been used for over 10 years at the time of registration.
In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent intentionally registered a domain name identical to the Trademarks to benefit from the good will associated with the Trademarks and is using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademarks.
Noting that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Trademarks, together with the ccTLD “.me”, that no Response has been filed and considering all the facts and evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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.
Nathalie Dreyfus
Sole Panelist
Date: January 29, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy