About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Bollore v. Tywonia W Hill

Case No. DCO2017-0012

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Bollore of Odet, France, of France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Tywonia W Hill of Bolingbrook, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bollore.co> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 20, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 21, 2017, 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 April 26, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 16, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 17, 2017.

The Center appointed Leon Trakman as the sole panelist in this matter on May 22, 2017. 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 transportations and logistics group founded in 1822. The Complainant is the owner of several international trademark registrations under the tradename BOLLORE. These include the international trademark BOLLORÉ registered on December 11, 1998, with the registration number 704697; and the international trademark BOLLORE registered on August 14, 1992, with the registration number 595172.

The Complainant has also registered various domain names, with its primary domain being <bollore.com> which was registered on July 25, 1997.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 17, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying pay-per-click (“PPC) links and has further been used to send fraudulent emails.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant, the Bolloré Group, was founded in 1822. It conducts business in three primary areas: Transportation and Logistics, Communication and Media, and Electricity Storage and solutions.

The Complainant adduces evidence that it is one of the 500 largest companies in the world. Listed on the Paris Stock Exchange and maintaining an online website at: “www.bollore.com” the majority of its shares are held by members of the Bolloré family.

The Complainant adduces evidence that the disputed domain name <bollore.co> has been parked since its registration. It presents further evidence that, on March 17 2017, the Respondent sent fraudulent emails from the email address “[…]@bollore.co”, under the subject “Facturas”.

The Complainant alleges further that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the name, and that the Respondent has registered and used the name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

The disputed domain name <bollore.co> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s international trademark BOLLORE. In particular, it includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, without any adjunction or deletion of letters or words from that trademark. The addition in the name of the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” does not offset the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name <bollore.co> and the Complainant’s trademark BOLLORE.

It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888. It is also well established that the addition of a TLD to a disputed domain name does not refute its confusing similarity to a trademark in respect of which it is otherwise identical. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), paragraph 1.11.1.

The disputed domain name <bollore.co> is identical to the Complainant’s trademark

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name in accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

Nor is there any evidence that the Respondent engages in, or has engaged in any activity or work, i.e., legitimate or fair use of the disputed domain name, that demonstrates a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, in accordance with the Policy, paragraph 4(a) (iii).

The Respondent has not engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services, but has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to engage in cybersquatting, in relying on Internet users to access the Respondent’s website on the assumption that the Respondent is the Complainant, or that the Respondent is acting for the Complainant.

It is further evident that the Respondent, by relying on the probability that a significant number of Internet users will mistakenly type the name of the Respondent’s website instead of the name of the Complainant’s website. In engaging in such cybersquatting, the Respondent “has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] web site . . . by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source of the web site”. See Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani, WIPO Case No. D2002-0568. See too EasyGroup IP Licensing Limited v. Wang Tao <easyjet.co>, WIPO Case No. DCO2012-0001; New Dream Network, LLC v. Yuanjin Wu- <dreamhost.co>, WIPO Case No. DCO2010-0013.

The fact that the Respondent’s disputed domain name directs Internet users to a parking website does not detract from the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant evinces evidence that the Respondent has engaged in email scamming by creating email addresses, such as “[…]@bollore.co”, under the subject heading “Facturas” meaning “invoice” for the purpose of misleading and deceiving Internet users to transfer money to the Respondent in the belief that the Respondent is the Complainant, or is acting for, or is affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent’s practice constitutes not only bad faith, but fraudulent misrepresentations by which the Respondent intends to, and has the effect, of inducing Internet users to engage in bank transfers in the Respondent’s favor, to the detriment of those Internet users, as well as causing reputational damage to the Complainant in the belief that the Respondent is the Complainant, or is acting for the Complainant. On such fraudulent conduct, see e.g., Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Vista Print Technologies Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2014-1387.

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.co>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Leon Trakman
Sole Panelist
Date: May 24, 2017

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/podcasts/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/