Westmore · UDRP DecisionUsa-bollore-logistics.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <usa-bollore-logistics.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS mark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. Although the domain did not resolve to an active website, the Panel applied the passive-holding doctrine in light of the distinctive mark, the domain’s composition, the absence of a Response, and the lack of any conceivable good-faith use.
The timeline behind usa-bollore-logistics.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates how a domain combining a distinctive logistics trademark with a geographic acronym can suggest an official regional operation rather than create meaningful differentiation. It also demonstrates that inactivity does not preclude a bad-faith finding when the domain targets a distinctive mark, the respondent defaults, and the panel finds no conceivable good-faith use.
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 v. WhoIs Privacy Protection Foundation / Anderson Paul Case No. D2019-2112 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bollore, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, The Netherlands / Anderson Paul, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <usa-bollore-logistics.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 2, 2019, 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 September 2, 2019, 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 September 3, 2019. 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 proceedings commenced on September 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 25, 2019. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on October 3, 2019. 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 a French multinational company that has been in business since 1822. It operates in three main areas: transportation and logistics, communication and media, and electricity storage and solutions. The Complainant’s subsidiary, Bolloré Logistics, is one of the 10 leading worldwide transport and logistics companies with 607 offices in 106 countries and more than 20,200 employees. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations consisting of or containing the trademark BOLLORÉ including international trademark registration No. 1302823 for the trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS registered on January 27, 2016 and which covers a wide range of goods and services. The Complainant also owns several domain names that contains the BOLLORÉ trademark including the domain name <bollore-logistics.com>. The disputed domain name <usa-bollore-logistics.com> was registered on August 22, 2019. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends: (i) that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS trademark in which it has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS trademark in its entirety and differs from the trademark only by the addition of the acronym for the United States of America “usa”. (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor has the Respondent been authorized or allowed by the Complainant to make any use of its BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS trademark. Also, the Respondent does not carry out any activity for or has any business with the Complainant, nor is the Respondent currently known under the name “Bolloré Logistics”; (iii) that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Respondent must thus have registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The fact that the disputed domain name is not used actively by the Respondent does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the UDRP. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <usa-bollore-logistics.com> is confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS because it contains the mark in its entirety (replacing the “é” for an “e”) with the addition of the acronym “usa”. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not dispel a finding of confusing similarity in the present case. The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is clear from the facts of the case that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark and given the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not produced, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings. Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name is such that it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Consequently, the Panel finds that the condition in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case, including the evidence on record of the use of the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS, 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. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the fact that it chose a domain name, which based on its composition could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion for such users. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The disputed domain name does currently not resolve to an active website. However, as first stated in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 , and repeated in many subsequent decisions under the UDRP: “the concept of a domain name ‘being used in bad faith’ is not limited to positive action; inaction is within the concept. That is to say, it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.” See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s distinctive trademark BOLLORÉ LOGISTICS, together with the common acronym “usa” and the gTLD “.com”, that no Response has been filed and that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name, and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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 <usa-bollore-logistics.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: October 17, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around usa-bollore-logistics.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.