WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Boursorama S.A. v. Domain Administrator, Registrant of boursrorama.com / chen xiansheng

Case No. D2021-4128

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Boursorama S.A., France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Registrant of boursrorama.com, United Kingdom / chen xiansheng, Singapore.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <boursrorama.com> is registered with Atak Domain Hosting Internet ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Limited Sirketi d/b/a Atak Teknoloji (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 9, 2021. On December 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2021, 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 December 22, 2021, 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 December 23, 2021.

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 proceedings commenced on December 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 17, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 18, 2022.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 2022. 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 1995, the Complainant provides online banking, brokerage, and financial information services. The Complainant is headquartered in Boulogne-Billancourt, France. In France alone, the Complainant has over 3 million customers.

The Complainant owns several registrations for the mark BOURSORAMA (the Mark) including the European Union Trade Mark registration No. 0001758614, registered on October 19, 2001.

The Complainant also owns several domain names that include the Mark including <boursorama.com>, which is the Complainant’s principal website.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 7, 2021. At the time of filing this Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering for sale porcelain and ceramic products. As of the date of this Decision, the disputed domain resolves to a pornographic website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because the disputed domain name is composed by inserting the letter “r” into the middle of the Complainant’s Mark.

The Complainant asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has never engaged in any bona fide commercial activity in connection with the disputed domain name.

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used to trick Internet users seeking the Complainant’s website into visiting the Respondent’s website for commercial gain.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(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; and

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark.

The disputed domain name is composed by adding the letter “r” into the middle of the Complainant’s Mark. A domain name which wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark will establish confusingly similarity for the purposes of the Policy when, as here, the Mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name notwithstanding the addition of a term. The visual impact of the Mark in the disputed domain name is apparent and obvious. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 (“where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographic, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”); Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Regeneron Careers, WIPO Case No. D2017-0013; Bombas LLC v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Maryellen J Dillard, Maryellen Dillard, WIPO Case No. D2021-0609.

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) of the disputed domain name, in this case “.com”, may be disregarded for the purposes of assessment under the first element, as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has specifically disavowed providing the Respondent with permission to use the disputed domain name or the Mark. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and does not have any business relationship with the Complainant. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website for 徐州水泵设计公司, translating to “Xuzhou Pump Design Company” via machine translate, which bears no resemblance in either form to the disputed domain name, neither does the name of the Respondent as disclosed by the Registrar.

The Complainant has thus established a prima facie case in its favor, which shifts the burden of production on this point to the Respondent. The Respondent, however, has failed to come forth with any evidence showing any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name, which prominently incorporates the Mark with the addition of the letter “r”, illustrates the Respondent’s intent to mislead Internet users via the easily overlooked typographical variation of the Mark as found in the disputed domain name. Coupled together with the for-profit use at the time of filing, or the potential for tarnishment due to the current pornographic content, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The facts and circumstances presented to the Panel demonstrate that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, bad faith may be established by any one of the following scenarios:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name 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 the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent has 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.

The Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A simple Internet search, normally undertaken before registering a domain name, would have disclosed the Complainant’s Mark. The Mark is not a common or descriptive term. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s Mark when registering the disputed domain name. See Boursorama SA v. Estrade Nicolas, WIPO Case No. D2017-1463. Indeed, the only likely conclusion is that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in the hope that Internet users seeking the Complainant would misspell the Complainant’s name and inadvertently land on the Respondent’s website. Typosquatting itself can be relevant evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Redbox Automated Retail, LLC d/b/a Redbox v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-1600.

The Respondent’s website initially offered porcelain and ceramic products. The disputed domain name now resolves to a pornographic website. There can be little doubt that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith to lure Internet users seeking the Complainant to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. See Areva v. Wang Songxu, WIPO Case No. D2012-2422 (disputed domain name resolves to a pornographic website). The change in use reinforces the Panel’s finding that the Respondent lacks any credible good faith explanation as to the registration and use of the disputed domain name.

Noting the composition of the disputed domain name, it is difficult to conceive of any use that the Respondent might make of the disputed domain name without the Complainant’s consent that would not involve bad faith. See, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909; DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG v. Wise One, Wilson TECH, WIPO Case No. D2021-0109; Monster Energy Company v. PrivacyDotLink Customer 116709 / Ferdinand Nikolaus Kronschnabl, WIPO Case No. D2016-1335.

Moreover, pornographic content on a respondent’s website may constitute a significant indicator of bad faith. See CHRISTIAN DIOR COUTURE v. Paul Farley, WIPO Case No. D2008-0008. In addition, the linking of the disputed domain name with a pornographic website might result in the tarnishing of the Complainant’s trademark and business reputation. See VIVENDI v. Guseva Svetlana, WIPO Case No. D2018-2631.

The Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <boursrorama.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: February 9, 2022