URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


BOURSORAMA SA v. Geraldine nott
Claim Number: FA1611001701265


DOMAIN NAME

<client-boursorama.frl>


PARTIES


   Complainant: BOURSORAMA SA of BOULOGNE BILLANCOURT, France
  
Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

   Respondent: Geraldine nott Geraldine nott of Kidderminster, II, GB
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: FRLregistry B.V.
   Registrars: Tucows Domains Inc.

EXAMINER


   The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
   Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: November 3, 2016
   Commencement: November 4, 2016
   Default Date: November 21, 2016
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION



   Findings of Fact: Complainant states, in full, as follows: “Complainant registered and has operated the website <boursorama.com> since 2001 as a financial news and services portal, and online banking customer account access and management. “The domain name <client­boursorama.frl> is confusingly similar to the trademark ‘BOURSORAMA’ n°1758614, registered on October 19th, 2001…. This trademark is also registered in the TMCH since August 27th, 2014…. “The addition of the term ‘CLIENT’ at the beginning of the domain name and separated with a hyphen to the trademark ‘BOURSORAMA®’, and the new gTLD ‘.FRL’ is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ‘BOURSORAMA’. “The addition of generic wording to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity and that panels have usually found the incorporated trademark to constitute the dominant component of the disputed domain name. Please see WIPO case no. D2014-1590 Fiskars Corporation v. James Taverner…. “The Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name and is not related to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant doesn’t carry out any activity or business with the Respondent. “The Respondent ‘Geraldine nott’ is not known as the domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent wasn’t commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information wasn’t similar to the disputed domain name. Please see NAF case no.FA699652 - Braun Corp. v. Loney. “Furthermore, the website in relation with the disputed domain name <client-boursorama.frl> is a false association to the complainant, by displaying a highly similar content… of the official website of the Complainant, in order to make phishing activities. Complainant notified the disputed domain name on the phishing database on 2016-11-02, and since this notification, the website is currently inactive. “The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name without any interest on it, only in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant…. “The domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ‘BOURSORAMA… registered in the TMCH…. “Thus, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark ‘BOURSORAMA’ at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name. “Moreover, the website in relation with the disputed domain name <boursorama.xyz> is a false association to the complainant, by displaying a highly similar content… of its official website in order to make phishing activities. “As prior Panels have held, attempting to pass itself off as the Complainant by using its registered trademarks with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks, in order to practice phishing activities is an evidence of bad faith registration and use. Please see for instance: NAF case FA105890, Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles.”

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Examiner determines that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Examiner determines that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Examiner determines that that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the domain name has been used in connection with a website that is likely to cause confusion with complainant's trademark.


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. client-boursorama.frl

 

Douglas M. Isenberg
Examiner
Dated: November 25, 2016

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page