WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Boursorama S.A. v. Raitua Brice Teissier

Case No. D2019-3096

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Raitua Brice Teissier, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <boursoma-banque.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 16, 2019. On December 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 24, 2019, 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 24, 2019, 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 26, 2019.

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 January 3, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 23, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 24, 2020.

The Center appointed Benjamin Fontaine as the sole panelist in this matter on January 29, 2020. 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 active in online financial information services, and online banking services, in France. It suffices to note here that according to the Complaint, the Complainant has over 2 million customers and that its websites receive over 30 million visits per month.

The Complainant offers its services under two main domain names. The first one, <boursorama.com>, hosts an information portal in the financial sector. The second one, <boursorama-banque.com>, hosts the webpage that provides the banking services.

BOURSORAMA is a registered trademark and the Complainant relies for the purpose of this case on the European Union registration BOURSORAMA (word mark) no. 001758614, registered on October 19, 2001, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41, and 42.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 13, 2019. In the course of this proceeding the Registrar disclosed the identity of the Respondent, who appears to be an individual domiciled in France.

The disputed domain name was used to host a webpage which offers services under the name “BB BOURSOMA BANQUE”. With a picture featuring several individuals as a background, the website contained a number of indications and links in French. It proposed several services such as bank accounts, personal loans and credits cards. It also offered an access online to existing accounts. Two colors were used prominently, pink and blue. It currently resolves to the web server’s default page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims, first, that the term “boursoma” in the disputed domain name is an obvious and deliberate misspelling of the trademark BOURSORAMA. It adds that the addition of the word “banque” reinforces the confusing similarity, as it refers directly to the field of activity of the Complainant.

Secondly, on the issue of rights or legitimate interests, the arguments of the Complainant are twofold. On one side, it indicates that to its knowledge the Respondent is not commonly known under the name “boursoma banque” and has not been authorised in any way to register and use the disputed domain name. On the other side, it indicates that the Respondent is deliberately imitating its colour scheme used on its website to offer competing services and is passing off its reputation; this would not amount to a bone fide offering of goods or services.

Regarding, third, the issue of bad faith registration and use, the Complainant indicates that “it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark”. It adds that the operation by the Respondent of competing banking services creates an intentional confusion for the users, and disrupts its activities.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove all of the following three elements in order to be successful in these proceedings:

(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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known trademark BOURSORAMA of the Complainant.

Proof of that, anecdotally, is that this Panel thought that the disputed domain name <boursoma‑banque.com> was actually spelled <boursorama-banque.com>, when rendering its Decision on this case. In other words the Panel did not notice at first or even second sight that the letters “r” and “a” were missing. This evidences an apparent misspelling on the part of the Respondent. Indeed the missing letters “r” and “a” are originally in the middle of the Complainant’s BOURSORAMA mark, and their deletion does not modify the overall visual similarity of the terms “boursoma” and “boursorama”. Besides, the element “banque” and the hyphen added to the word “boursoma”, which is placed in first position, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Complainant has therefore satisfied the first requirement of the Policy, under article 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In this case the Complainant has indicated that to its knowledge the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has not rebutted these arguments. In any event, it appears clearly that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and therefore the Complainant has also satisfied the second element of the Policy, under paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In order to prevail under the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These are:

(i) circumstances indicating that [a respondent has] registered or acquired a disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the complainant or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the complainant from reflecting the complainant’s trademark or service 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 disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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 Respondent is clearly engaged here in acts of cybersquatting, which in the field of banking services are particularly dangerous both for the Complainant and its customers.

The Respondent has knowingly registered a domain name which is not only confusingly similar to the trademark BOURSORAMA, but it has also configured it in an identical manner to the Complainant’s domain name. The disputed domain name is <boursoma-banque.com>, while the domain name used by the Complainant for its banking services is <boursorama-banque.com>. In other words, the Respondent has (1) imitated the famous trademark BOURSORAMA, (2) added in second position the word “banque”, (3) also separated with a hyphen, and (4) has also registered the combination under the same generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.

This is proof of bad faith registration.

Besides, the Respondent has immediately used the disputed domain name to host a webpage, which imitates a number of features of the webpage of the Complainant (namely the picture featuring individuals in the background, the colors pink and blue) offering similar services. Of course, this consequently creates a strong confusion for the users and disrupt the Complainant’s business. Ultimately, the Respondent is probably engaged through this website in a phishing scheme.

This is proof of bad faith use.

The Complainant has reacted very quickly to these acts of cybersquatting by filing this Complaint without delay. And indeed the disputed domain name should be transferred to it in order to prevent the furtherance of the activities of the Respondent. Beyond the confusion and the disruption, what is at stake is of course the potential risk of phishing of the accounts details of the customers.

Accordingly, the third criteria element set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also satisfied.

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 <boursoma-banque.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Benjamin Fontaine
Sole Panelist
Date: February 7, 2020