Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-104787

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The BOLLORE group (the Complainant) was founded in 1822. Thanks to a diversification strategy based on innovation and international development, it now holds strong positions in all its activities around three business lines: Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, Electricity Storage and solutions (please see their website at: www.bollore.com).

It is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange, the majority interest of the Group's stock is always controlled by the Bolloré family. This stable majority control of its capital allows the Group to develop a long-term investment policy. In addition to its activities, the Group manages a number of financial assets including plantations and financial investments.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks including the term “BOLLORE”, such as the international trademark registration BOLLORE® n° 704697.

The Complainant also owns and communicates on the Internet through various domain names, the main one being <bollore.com>, registered on July 25, 1997.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

The disputed domain name <dollore.com> was registered on August 1, 2022.

The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Besides, the domain name has been used in a phishing scheme.

Legal Grounds:

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark

The disputed domain name <dollore.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®. Indeed, the substitution of the “B” by the “D” in the trademark BOLLORE® is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion existing, as they look highly similar.

This is a clear case of “typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant refers to CAC Case No. 103070, BOLLORE v. Ryan Stewart (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. As the Complainant correctly pointed out, substitution of the letter “o” by the letter “c” in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to exclude the likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Trademark, as they look highly similar from visual perspective. It is an obvious, and in the opinion of the Panel also deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s Trademark and thus a clear case of typosquatting.”).

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark BOLLORE®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.

The Complainant refers to WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).

Prior UDRP confirmed the Complaint’s rights in cases CAC Case No. 102999, BOLLORE v. Dusenberry Julie, <boilore.com>; WIPO Case No. D2020-0428, Bollore v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / Prince Sammy, <ballore.net>; CAC Case No. 103261, BOLLORE SE v. bayama moore, <bollora.xyz>.

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <dollore.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®.


II. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name

According to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such 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.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name, but as “Sugar Mine Co. Ltd”. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by BOLLORE in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

Moreover, neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name <dollore.com> by the Complainant.

The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOLLORE®. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.

The Complainant refers to Forum Case No. FA 1807147, Bittrex Inc. v. Kathryn Bates (“The Panel agrees that misspellings, such as the substitution of a letter, do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's BITTREX trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”).

Moreover, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to further a phishing scheme. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s use of the domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).

The Complainant refers to Forum Case No. FA 1785242, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc. (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”).

Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name <dollore.com>.


III. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE® is well-known and distinctive. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOLLORE® in the following cases:

- CAC Case No. 102015, BOLLORE SA v. mich john (“the Panel takes note, again, of the distinctiveness of the Complainant's brand and the intention that must be presumed to exist in registering a domain name bearing such confusing similarity with well-known brand name.”);

- CAC Case No. 101696, BOLLORE v. Hubert Dadoun (“As the Complainant is also one of the largest 500 companies in the world, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contention that their trademark has a strong reputation and is in fact to be considered well-known.”)".


Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, the Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name <dollore.com> without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark.

Moreover, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name <dollore.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark and branded goods BOLLORE®. Indeed, the substitution of the letter “B” by the letter “D” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark BOLLORE®. The Complainant states that this misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.

The Complainant refers to CAC Case No. 101990, JCDECAUX SA v. Gemma Purnell <jcdeceux.com> (“Furthermore, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain name is a typical case of typosquatting which in turn is a strong indicator of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.”).

Finally, the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. Past panels have confirmed that impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s trademark in a fraudulent phishing attempt is disruptive and evinces bad faith registration and use.

The Complainant refers to Forum Case No. FA 1661030, Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green/ Whois Agent/Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. (finding that respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent e-mails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii).).

Consequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <dollore.com> in bad faith.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

This is a case of "typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.

Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark. exchanging the first letter "b" in BOLLORE with the very similar looking and sounding letter "d", does not take away the confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark.

Simple exchange or adding of letters is not a sufficient element to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use his trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Given the circumstances of the case, including the provided information of the use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE and the distinctive nature of this mark, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. In this case the Complainant has however evidenced that the disputed domain name enables the Respondent to send emails using an e-mail address that contains the disputed domain name.

It is inconceivable that the Respondent can use the e-mails connected to the disputed domain name for good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address. The Panel notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

1. The three essential issues under the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are whether:

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 with respect to the disputed domain name; and

iii. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.


2. The Panel reviewed carefully all documents provided by the Complainant. The Respondent did not provide the Panel with any documents or statements. The Panel also visited all available websites and public information concerning the disputed domain name, namely the WHOIS databases.


3. The UDRP Rules clearly say in its Article 3 that any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.


4. The Panel therefore came to the following conclusions:

a) The Complainant states and proves that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and its domain names. Indeed, the trademark is partially incorporated in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is therefore deemed identical or confusingly similar.

b) The Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name and have not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name or mark, nor is there any authorization for the Respondent by the Complainant to use or register the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name.

c) It is clear that the Complainant's trademarks and website(s) were used by the Complainant long time before the disputed domain name was registered. There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there is evidence that the disputed domain name is likely used as part of e-mail addresses for fraudulent purposes. It is concluded that the Respondent makes bad faith use of the disputed domain name.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

For the reasons stated above, it is the decision of this Panel that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.