{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007519",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "référenceboursorama.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Blanchier Pierre (BOURSORAMA SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Laurene Corbeil"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a French corporation, founded in 1995. It is a pioneer and leader in France in its three core businesses of online brokerage, financial information on the Internet and online banking. \r\nThe Complainant owns several trademarks, including the following:\r\n\r\n•\tFrench Trademark BOURSORAMA, registered under No. 98723359 on March 13th of 1998;\r\n•\tFrench Trademark BOUSORAMA BANQUE, registered under No. 3676762 on September 16th of 2009;\r\n•\tFrench Trademark Boursorama banque, registered under No. 3370460 on July 13th of 2005; and\r\n•\tCommunity Trademark BOURSORAMA, registered under No. 001758614 on October 19th of 2001.\r\n\r\n(Together referred to as the “Marks”) \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a number of domain names, among which the domain name “bousorama.com”, registered since March 1st of 1998.\r\n\r\nOn June 15th of 2017, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name “référenceboursorama.eu”, hereafter the “Domain Name”, for which the Complainant claims the transfer. \r\n\r\nOn June 16th of 2017, BOURSORAMA SA (the “Complainant”) filed a complaint against the registration of the Domain Name.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "The Panel has reviewed and considered the parties' submissions, such as they are. \r\n\r\n1. No response submitted\r\n\r\nThe Panel draws attention to paragraph B 10 (a) of the ADR Rules that provides that the Panel may consider the failure to comply with the time limits established by the ADR Rules as grounds to accept the claims of the other party, and to article 22 (10) of Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 that establishes the following principle: “Failure of any of the parties involved in an ADR procedure to respond within the given deadlines or appear to a panel hearing may be considered as grounds to accept the claims of the counterparty”.\r\n\r\n2. Eligibility\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the Complainant satisfies the general eligibility criteria for registration according to paragraph 4 (2) (b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002\r\n\r\n3. Legal basis\r\n\r\nIn order for the Complaint to succeed, the Complainant must show, in accordance with Article 21 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 and Paragraph B11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules, that: \r\n\r\n(a) the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law; and either \r\n\r\n(b) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n(c) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\n4. The issue of speculative or abusive registration\r\n\r\n4.1. Identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademark\r\n\r\nThe first requirement is that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and\/or Community law. The Panel finds as follows:\r\n\r\n- The details the Complainant has provided of its many prior registered Marks establish that it has rights in the name \"BOURSORAMA\".\r\n\r\n- The disputed Domain Name comprises the Complainant's name \"BOURSORAMA\" as they include the name \"BOURSORAMA\" in its entirety and then the mere addition of the generic term and non-distinctive word \"référence\".\r\n\r\n- The name \"BOURSORAMA\" is a distinctive term that has no meaning in English, French, so far as the Panel is aware, in any other language.\r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing consideration, the disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to name (Marks) in which the Complainant has right. The Panel concludes that the requirements under Article 21 (1) (a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004 are met.\r\n\r\n4.2. No rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe second (alternative) requirement is that the Domain Name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name. The Panel finds as follow:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has been duly given a proper chance to provide argumentation and evidence on having rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name, but the Respondent has not made any submissions in this respect. The Respondent has thus failed to present any evidence of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name, although it was duly given a chance to do so.\r\n\r\n- Paragraph B11 (e) of the ADR Rules lists examples of circumstances, without limitation, by which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, namely that: \r\n\r\n(i) before any notice of the dispute, the respondent can show use of the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so; or\r\n\r\n(ii) the respondent can show that it has been commonly known by the domain name, even if no trade mark or service mark rights have been acquired; or \r\n\r\n(iii) a respondent is making a legitimate and noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in which a right is recognized or established by national law and\/or Community law.\r\n\r\n- It is generally accepted that if the Complainant is able to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does. The Complainant has invoked different elements, making out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name. Among other things, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. \r\n\r\n- As no response of any sort has been served by the Respondent, the Panel has no information which might lead it to revise that assessment. Moreover, paragraph B 10 (a) of the ADR Rules and the article 22 (10) of Regulation (EC) No. 871\/2004 provide that the Panel may consider the failure to comply with the time limits established by the ADR Rules as grounds to accept the claims of the other party.\r\n\r\nThe Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nBased on the foregoing, the Panel concludes that it finds the requirements to conclude to a speculative or abusive registration (article 21 (1) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004) are already met. \r\n\r\n4.3. Bad faith\r\n\r\nThe third (alternative) requirement is that the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds as follows:\r\n\r\n- Under the ADR Rules, the need to establish bad faith registration and use is an alternative requirement to showing no rights or legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent and not an additional requirement.\r\n\r\n- The registration or the use of the Domain Name in bad faith does not have to be examined since the other criteria to revoke speculative or abusive registration (Article 21 (1) (a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004) are fulfilled.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain name RÉFÉRENCEBOURSORAMA.EU be transferred to the Complainant",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-09-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: référenceboursorama.com\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: France, country of the Respondent: France\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: June 15th of 2017\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:\r\n1. French Trademark BOURSORAMA, registered under No. 98723359 on March 13th of 1998;\r\n2. French Trademark BOUSORAMA BANQUE, registered under No. 3676762 on September 16th of 2009;\r\n3. French Trademark Boursorama banque, registered under No. 3370460 on July 13th of 2005;\r\n4. Community Trademark BOURSORAMA, registered under No. 001758614 on October 19th of 2001\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why: The Complainant states, among other things, that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. In absence of a Response, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed Domain Name. \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Bad faith does not have to be examined\r\n        2. Why: The registration or the use of the Domain Name in bad faith does not have to be examined since the criteria to revoke speculative or abusive registration (Article 21 (1) (a) of the Regulation (EC) No. 874\/2004) are fulfilled.\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: none\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: none\r\n\r\nXII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}