Westmore · UDRP DecisionBollore-credits.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <bollore-credits.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier BOLLORÉ trademark, held that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and concluded that the domain was registered and used in bad faith through a credit-services website that attempted to trade on the mark's reputation and confuse Internet users. Although the Panel stated that the precise nature of the apparent scheme was not clearly established, it found evidence of fraudulent purpose sufficient to satisfy the third UDRP element.
The timeline behind bollore-credits.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 bollore-credits.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how adding a descriptive financial term to a distinctive trademark can reinforce rather than reduce confusion when the corresponding website offers services matching that term. It also shows that apparent impersonation and suspect business details can defeat any claim to legitimate interests and establish bad faith, even where the evidence does not fully reveal the mechanics of the apparent fraudulent scheme.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bollore SA v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0141407888 / Pastel nathaniel karl-loic Case No. D2015-2113 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bollore SA of Ergue Gaberic, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0141407888 of Toronto, Canada / Pastel nathaniel karl-loic of Seine-Saint-Denis, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bollore-credits.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 20, 2015. On November 20, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 25, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 26, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 26, 2015. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on November 30, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 20, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 23, 2015. The Center appointed Alexandre Nappey as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Founded in 1822, the Bolloré Group 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. Thanks to a diversification strategy based on innovation and on 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. In addition to its activities, the Group manages a number of financial assets including plantations and financial investments. The Complainant is the owner of many trademarks “Bolloré” such as: Country Trademark Registration number Registration Date Classes International BOLLORÉ 704697 August 14, 1992 16,17,34,35,36,38,39 International BOLLORE 595172 December 11, 1998 16,17,34,35,36,38,39 Europe BOLLORÉ 1021963 December 18, 1998 16,17,34,35,36,38,39 France BOLLORÉ 98739779 July 1, 1998 16,17,34,35,36,38,39 The Complainant owns and communicates on the Internet through various websites, among which “www.bollore.com”, but the Complainant has also registered numerous domain names similar to trademark “BOLLORE”. The disputed domain name was registered on September 26, 2015. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <bollore-credits.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark since it incorporates in its entirety the trademark BOLLORÉ. According to the Complainant, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” does not avoid the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name <bollore-credits.com> and the Complainant, its trademarks and other intellectual property rights. With respect to right and legitimate interest, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Complainant. No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. The disputed domain name points to a website in French offering credit services under the name BOLLORE CREDIT, but the Complainant claims that there is no company registered under that business name, or at the address displayed in the WhoIs database. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to attract consumers through the notoriety of the Complainant’s mark. Last, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent who has no connection whatsoever to the Complainant, sought to take advantage of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known BOLLORÉ trademark, for commercial advantage and/or to disrupt the Complainant’s business. As a matter of fact, the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains up to the Complainant to make out its case in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, and to demonstrate that: (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. However, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. Having consideration to the parties’ contentions, the Policy, Rules, Supplemental Rules and applicable substantive law, the Panel’s findings on each of the above mentioned elements are the following. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant owns exclusive trademark rights on the name BOLLORÉ, which predate the registration of the disputed domain name, especially in France where the parties are established. The disputed domain name merely adds the combination of descriptive word “credits” to the BOLLORÉ trademark. The Panel finds that the word “credits” added to the trademark does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark. As ruled in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc v. Kuchora , Kal , WIPO Case No. D2006-0033 ,“if a domain name incorporates a complainant’s mark in its entirety, it is confusingly similar to that mark despite the addition of other words.” For instance, previous UDRP panels have ruled that the addition of words like “credits” or descriptive suffixes to a trademark in a domain name is not sufficient to dispel confusing similarity: In Docler IP S.àr;l, Duodecad IT services Luxembourg S.àr.l, WebMindLicences Korlàtolt Felelösségu v. Domain Admin / Zoran Savic , WIPO Case No. D2015-1186 it has been ruled that: “(…) the term ‘freecredits’ is descriptive in nature and is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the disputed domain name is liable to suggest to Internet users that it relates to the Complainants’ website (…).” The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark of the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s BOLLORÉ trademarks. The Complainant further contends that the Complainant has no knowledge that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name or acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website where the Respondent is promoting credit services. On the homepage footer are displayed company details that are not related to any incorporated French company. The Respondent appears to have used the disputed domain name in connection with a credit-related and identity-theft scam, by impersonating the Complainant in an effort to obtain personal information from people that may be looking for loans and credit services online. Even if the Complainant is not currently active in the area of banking and credit services, its name and trademark BOLLORÉ enjoys goodwill and reputation that lead Internet users to feel confident with the offers promoted on the website operated under the disputed domain name, and therefore be confused. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent was given the opportunity by way of reply to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. However, the Respondent did not file a Response nor avail itself of the benefits of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has therefore established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has created a risk of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name. The Panel also finds that paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy applies since the Complainant presented evidence that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of diverting Internet users based on the reputation and goodwill of the trademark BOLLORÉ. The Complainant has produced evidence that the disputed domain name is used to operate a website promoting credit services, which clearly tries to confuse Internet users by using the Complainant’s trademark. Although the exact nature of the scheme is not clearly determined on the basis of the evidence produced by the Complainant, it is obvious to this Panel that some fraudulent or criminal activity may have been conducted under the disputed domain name. The impersonation or at least attempt to confuse the Internet users also shows that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. Given the evidence of use of the disputed domain name for a fraudulent purpose, the Panel readily concludes that it was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <bollore-credits.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Alexandre Nappey Sole Panelist Date: February 3, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bollore-credits.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
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.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.