WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BOLLORÉ, v. Bollore / Bollore

Case No. D2016-1979

1. The Parties

The Complainant is BOLLORÉ of Odet Ergue Gaberic, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Bollore / Bollore, of Island City, UM, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bolloore.com> is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 29, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 2, 2016, 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 October 10, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 30, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 1, 2016.

The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on November 8, 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 is BOLLORÉ of Odet, Ergue Gaberic, France. The Complainant was founded in 1822. It is active in the area of transportation and logistics, communication and media, electricity storage and solutions.

The Complainant owns the trademark international registrations Nos. 704697, registered on December 11, 1998, for BOLLORÉ & design, and 595172, for BOLLORE, registered on August 14, 1992.

The domain name <bollore.com> was registered by the Complainant on July 25, 1997.

The Respondent is Bollore / Bollore, of Island City, 45894 UM, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 7, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <bolloore.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOLLORE and that the duplication of the letter “O” is a typographical error likely to be made by the Internet users. The Complainant mentions a similar case related do “typosquatting,” namely Brink’s Network, Inc. v. Peter Nuts, WIPO Case No. D2016-1429. Therefore, the Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.

The Complainant also alleges that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain name such as “.com” is irrelevant to determine whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark or not.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor has been authorized by the Complainant to use the mark BOLLORE.

It claims that the Respondent is not engaged in the bona fide offering of goods or services related to the disputed domain name.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has created a false email account using the disputed domain name pretending to be one of the Complainant’s employees, in order to obtain money from the Complainant’s clients. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is currently inactive and that this constitutes “scamming.” It cites the case Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Vista Print Technologies Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2014-1387 to corroborate its argument.

Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove 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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of international registrations for the trademark BOLLORÉ/BOLLORE. The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name imitates the trademark BOLLORE with the duplication of the letter “O.”

The duplication of the letter “O” is not enough to avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, and might be considered a case of typosquatting.

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s contentions that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainant’s marks or to register domain names imitating the trademark BOLLORE.

The Respondent has not proved that it is known by the mark BOLLOORE and the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is currently inactive.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name comprises the mark BOLLORE with the addition of a double “o” which does not avoid confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in using the mark BOLLORE.

The Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has created and used an email account pretending to be one of the Complainant’s employees to obtain illicit financial gain from the Complainant’s clients (scamming).

Besides the fake email account, the disputed domain name does not appear to have been used by the Respondent.

This Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention of taking undue advantage of the mark BOLLORE as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated.

For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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, <bolloore.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: November 21, 2016