COMPLAINANT
A. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bouygues-constructionstp.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”®. Indeed, the trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”® is included in its entirety.
The Complainant contends that the addition of a hyphen, the letter “S” at the end of the term “CONSTRUCTION”, which is a mark of the plural, and the abbreviation “TP” (which refers to the French expression “TRAVAUX PUBLICS”, one of the activities of BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION) are not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”®. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.
All these elements are not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks and linked to the Complainant.
Thus, the disputed domain name <bouygues-constructionstp.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION®.
B. A 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, 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 Policy.
The Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name in the Whois database, and has not acquired trademarks mark rights on this terms. Past Panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use the trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”®. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
Besides, the Complainant asserts that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as a purchase manager employed by BOUGUES TRAVAUX PUBLICS, an affiliate of BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).
Furthermore, the domain name is inactive. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name, except for the phishing scheme. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
C. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <bouygues-constructionstp.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”®. Indeed, the domain name contains the Complainant's trademark in its entirety.
Prior UDRP panels have established that the trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”® is well-known.
Besides, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a phishing scheme. Thus, the Respondent necessarily knew about the Complainant and its affiliates.
Furthermore, the Complainant states that the Responded used the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is well-established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use.
Finally, the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
Finally, the Respondent has been involved in past UDRP proceedings with the same Complainant. This pattern of conduct evidences the Respondent's bad faith. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2019-1390, Bouygues S.A. v. Whois Privacy (enumDNS dba) / Rafael Vivier; WIPO Case No. D2019-1401, Bouygues S.A. v. Rafael Viver.
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
RESPONDENT
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.
|