Westmore · UDRP DecisionBolloore.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <bolloore.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BOLLORE mark because it merely duplicated the letter “o”; found no rights or legitimate interests based on the absence of authorization, evidence of being commonly known by BOLLOORE, or active legitimate use; and found bad-faith registration and use because the Respondent used an email account associated with the domain to impersonate a Complainant employee and seek illicit financial gain from the Complainant’s clients.
The timeline behind bolloore.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 bolloore.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a straightforward typosquatting and email-impersonation pattern. A one-letter duplication did not prevent confusing similarity, and the Panel treated use of the resulting domain for employee impersonation and attempted financial gain as compelling evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv). The absence of an active website did not prevent a finding of use because the domain was used for email.
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 BOLLORÉ, v. Bollore / Bollore Case No. D2016-1979 1. The Parties The Complainant is BOLLORÉ of Odet Ergue Gaberic, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Bollore / Bollore, of Island City, UM, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bolloore.com> is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-Channel.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 29, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 2, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 proceedings commenced on October 10, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 30, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 1, 2016. The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on November 8, 2016. 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 The Complainant is BOLLORÉ of Odet, Ergue Gaberic, France. The Complainant was founded in 1822. It is active in the area of transportation and logistics, communication and media, electricity storage and solutions. The Complainant owns the trademark international registrations Nos. 704697, registered on December 11, 1998, for BOLLORÉ & design, and 595172, for BOLLORE, registered on August 14, 1992. The domain name <bollore.com> was registered by the Complainant on July 25, 1997. The Respondent is Bollore / Bollore, of Island City, 45894 UM, United States Minor Outlying Islands, United States of America. The disputed domain name was registered on September 7, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is currently inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <bolloore.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark BOLLORE and that the duplication of the letter “O” is a typographical error likely to be made by the Internet users. The Complainant mentions a similar case related do “typosquatting,” namely Brink’s Network, Inc. v. Peter Nuts , WIPO Case No. D2016-1429 . Therefore, the Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant also alleges that the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain name such as “.com” is irrelevant to determine whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected mark or not. The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor has been authorized by the Complainant to use the mark BOLLORE. It claims that the Respondent is not engaged in the bona fide offering of goods or services related to the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has created a false email account using the disputed domain name pretending to be one of the Complainant’s employees, in order to obtain money from the Complainant’s clients. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is currently inactive and that this constitutes “scamming.” It cites the case Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Vista Print Technologies Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2014-1387 to corroborate its argument. Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of international registrations for the trademark BOLLORÉ/BOLLORE. The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name imitates the trademark BOLLORE with the duplication of the letter “O.” The duplication of the letter “O” is not enough to avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, and might be considered a case of typosquatting. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e. , the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s contentions that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainant’s marks or to register domain names imitating the trademark BOLLORE. The Respondent has not proved that it is known by the mark BOLLOORE and the disputed domain name resolves to a website that is currently inactive. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e ., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name comprises the mark BOLLORE with the addition of a double “o” which does not avoid confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in using the mark BOLLORE. The Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has created and used an email account pretending to be one of the Complainant’s employees to obtain illicit financial gain from the Complainant’s clients (scamming). Besides the fake email account, the disputed domain name does not appear to have been used by the Respondent. This Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention of taking undue advantage of the mark BOLLORE as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e ., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, <bolloore.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Mario Soerensen Garcia Sole Panelist Date: November 21, 2016
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bolloore.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.