This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on December 4, 2019. The Domain Holder submitted a response on December 9, 2019.

The Center appointed Bengt Eliasson as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on December 16, 2019. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Petitioner, Boursorama was founded in 1995 and has grown in Europe with the emergence of e-commerce and the continuous expansion of the range of financial online products.

As a pioneer and leader in its three core businesses, online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking, Boursorama has based its growth on innovation, commitment and transparency. Today the Petitioner is the online banking reference in France with over 2 million customers.

The Petitioner is the owner of several trademark registrations for BOURSORAMA and has based the application for Alternative Dispute Resolution on the European Union Trademark Registration No. 001758614 registered on October 19, 2001.

The Petitioner also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, such as the domain name <boursorama.com>, registered since March 1, 1998.

The disputed domain name <boursorama.se> was registered on November 23, 2019 and is redirecting to a parking page with commercial links related to the Petitioner’s products. In addition, the domain name is offered for sale on the website “ACHETER CE DOMAINE”.

5. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

6. Parties’ Contentions

A. Petitioner

The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the owner of the European Union Trademark BOURSORAMA, registered under No. 001758614, which is identical to the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the addition of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.se” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Petitioners trademark BOURSORAMA, see also MAJE SAS v. S.M.M.J, WIPO Case No. DSE2017-0003, ("the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark MAJE").

On those facts, the Petitioner contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its prior European Union Trademark BOURSORAMA.

The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Petitioner claims that its trademark BOURSORAMA is well known and has been used for many years. Thus, the Domain Holder must have been aware of the Petitioner when he registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the website related to the disputed domain name is redirecting to a parking page with commercial links related to the Petitioner and its activities. The Petitioner claims that the Domain Holder leads traffic to his own website by using the Petitioner's trademark and then increases revenue through the sponsored links.

Moreover, the disputed domain name is offered for sale on the website “ACHETER CE DOMAINE” with a link that redirects the Internet user to an online form. Prior panels found that a disputed domain name, leading to a website with pay-per-click links and information that the domain name is for sale, established registration and use in bad faith, see for instance, Statoil ASA v. Limited D-Max, D-Max Ltd, WIPO Case No. DSE2017-0038.

On those facts, the Petitioner contends that the Domain Holder has registered and is using the disputed domain name <boursorama.se> in bad faith.

The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name

According to Croatia Airlines d .d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, the Petitioner is required to make out a prima facie case that the Domain Holder lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Domain Holder carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Domain Holder fails to do so, the Petitioner is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”).

The Petitioner contends that the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Domain Holder. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Domain Holder to make any use of the trademark BOURSORAMA, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder has registered the disputed domain name <boursorama.se> with the aims to prevent the Petitioner to register it, and to divert Internet traffic, and to increase his income, see Statoil ASA v. Limited D-Max, D-Max Ltd., supra.

Consequently, the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder has contested the claims presented by the Petitioner, without presenting any arguments in support of his opinion.

7. Discussion and Findings

A domain name may, in accordance with the .se Policy paragraph 7.2, be deregistered or transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if all of the following three conditions are fulfilled:

1. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and

2. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith, and

3. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name.

All three conditions must be met in order for a petitioner to succeed in its action.

A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the owner of European Union Trademark registration No. 001758614 BOURSORAMA, registered on October 19, 2001, which is identical to the disputed domain name.

B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Arbitrator concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered long after the registration of the Petitioner’s European Union Trademark registration. The Petitioner has contended that the disputed domain name was registered for the purposes of redirecting to the Domain Holder’s website and thereby take unfair advantage of the reputation of the Petitioner’s trademark. In the absence of any facts or comments, other than a short contestation in the case, contradicting the claims presented by the Petitioner, it may be considered that the Domain Holder has registered and/or used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name

The Domain Holder has only submitted a short reply and contested the Petitioner’s claims without presenting any arguments in support of his opinion. There is nothing else in the case stating that the Domain Holder has a right or justified interest in the disputed domain name. Redirecting of the disputed domain name to a website with commercial links in order to increase traffic and revenue through sponsored links without presenting any consent or motives for such use is not sufficient for the Arbitrator to consider the Domain Holder to have any right or justified interest in the disputed domain name. The Arbitrator therefore concludes that the Domain Holder has no right or justified interest in the disputed domain name.

8. Decision

The disputed domain name <boursorama.se> shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

9. Summary

The disputed domain name is identical to the Petitioner’s registered trademark and has been registered after the registration of the Petitioner’s reputed trademark. The Domain Holder has redirected the disputed domain name to a website with commercial links related to the Petitioner´s products in order to increase traffic and revenue through sponsored links. The Arbitrator finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and/or used in bad faith. Furthermore, the Arbitrator concludes that the Domain Holder has not presented any right or justified interest in the disputed domain name.

Bengt Eliasson
Date: January 5, 2020