Westmore · UDRP decision
CAC · Case No. CAC-UDRP-103804

Boursorama-espace-clients.com, Espace-client-boursorama.info

TransferCAC-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of both disputed domain names after finding that they were confusingly similar to the BOURSORAMA trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domains were registered and used in bad faith.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
CAC
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2021-06-18
Panelist(s)
Michal Matějka
Complainant
BOURSORAMA SA
Respondent
saad saad
Counsel
laurent Becker
Disputed domain(s)
boursorama-espace-clients.com, espace-client-boursorama.info
Citation weightrelies on 1 authority
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind boursorama-espace-clients.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind boursorama-espace-clients.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Outcome by domain

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

boursorama-espace-clients.comTransferred
espace-client-boursorama.infoTransferred
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of boursorama-espace-clients.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

Given the Complainant’s reputation and the well-known nature of its trademark, the Panel found no conceivable good-faith registration and use where the domains had no legitimate websites and the Respondent provided no response establishing good-faith use or preparations for such use.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarMet
Rights or legitimate interestsMet
Registered and used in bad faithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
CAC
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2021-06-18
Panel
Michal Matějka
Full decision
6 min read · hosted by Westmore

Case number CAC-UDRP-103804 Time of filing 2021-05-13 11:36:13 Domain names boursorama-espace-clients.com, espace-client-boursorama.info Case administrator Organization Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin) Complainant Organization BOURSORAMA SA Complainant representative Organization Nameshield (Laurent Becker) Respondent Name saad saad 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 names. Identification Of Rights The Complainant is the registered owner of the EU word trademark “BOURSORAMA”, reg. no. 001758614, filed on July 13, 2000, registered on 19 October 2001, with the priority date of 13 July 2000, registered for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42 (“Complainant’s Trademark”). The disputed domain name <boursorama-espace-clients.com> was registered on 8 May 2021 and <espace-client-boursorama.info> on 9 May 2021. Factual Background As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent: (a) The Complainant was founded in 1995, and provides services to its clients consisting in particular of online brokerage, financial information and online banking; (b) The Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark; (c) The Complainant owns various domain names including the same distinctive wording BOURSORAMA, of which the domain name <boursorama.com> has been registered since 1 March 1998; (d) The disputed domain name <boursorama-espace-clients.com> was registered on 8 May 2021 and <espace-client-boursorama.info> on 9 May 2021; and (e) Both disputed domain names resolve to page with commercial links (pay-per-click). Parties Contentions PARTIES' CONTENTIONS: COMPLAINANT: In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following: (i) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark which is included in disputed domain names in its entirety. The addition of French term “Espace Clients” (meaning in English “Customers Area”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods BOURSORAMA®. (ii) The Respondent is not known by the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and is not related in any way to Complainant’s business. The Respondent is apparently making neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, through the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain names; and (iii) The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's Trademark which is well-known and therefore it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark. Moreover, disputed domain names resolve to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own websites thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain. As a result, the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. RESPONDENT: The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint. Rights The Panel concluded that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP" or "Policy"). For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision". No Rights or Legitimate Interests 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 names within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision". Bad Faith The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision". Procedural Factors 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. Principal Reasons for the Decision Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding. RIGHTS The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The Panel fully agrees with the Complainant that an addition of non-distinctive terms such as "espace" and "clients" is not sufficient to diminish such confusing similarity. For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com" and ".info") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS 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 UDRP (please see, for example, WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.). As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did not establish any right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). BAD FAITH Given the reputation of the Complainant and well-known nature of its trademark the Panel cannot find any conceivable good faith registration and use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent in a situation where there are no legitimate websites under the disputed domain names and there was no response to the complaint in which the Respondent could have established such good faith use of the disputed domain names (or at least preparations for such good faith use). For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be BOURSORAMA-ESPACE-CLIENTS.COM: Transferred ESPACE-CLIENT-BOURSORAMA.INFO: Transferred PANELLISTS Name Michal Matějka Date of Panel Decision 2021-06-18 Publish the Decision

Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around boursorama-espace-clients.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,979 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on CAC-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Essential cookies only. Nothing is sold or shared.