WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Bollore SE v. Malina Gorska

Case No. DCO2021-0006

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bollore SE, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Malina Gorska, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bollorre.co> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 25, 2021. On January 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 27, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5, 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 February 5, 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 February 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2021.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 20, 2021. 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 operates in transportation and logistics, communication and media, and electricity storage and solutions. The Complainant is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. The Bollore Group has 84,000 employees worldwide with a turnover of EUR 24,843 million.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks including the term BOLLORÉ, such as International trademark registration No. 704697, registered in 1998.

The Complainant owns various domain names, the main one being <bollore.com>, registered on July 24, 1997.

The Domain Name was registered on January 21, 2021. At the time of filing the Complaint, and the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolved to a parking page with commercial links.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as it incorporates its trademark entirely with the addition of the letter “r”.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is not bona fide. It resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the Domain Name.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark is well known and distinctive. The registration is a clear example of typo squatting. The Complainant contends it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name documents a bad faith attempt to attract Internet users for commercial at the detriment of the Complainant. Finally, the Domain Name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that the Respondent has or may use the Domain Name for emails with bad faith intent.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights in its trademark BOLLORÉ. The test for confusing similarity involves a comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety (minus the accent), with an additional letter “r”. The addition does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co”.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name redirects to a parking page with commercial links. There is no evidence of bona fide use in the case file.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Based on the evidence, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. Without any other plausible explanation as to why the Respondent registered the Domain Name, and noting the use of the Domain Name, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s intention is and has been to attract Internet users, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.

The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 Domain Name <bollorre.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: April 26, 2021