The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name features the Complainant’s BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION registered trademark in its entirety prefixed by the word “CARRIERES” and with a dash or hyphen used as a separator between the words “BOUYGUES” and “CONSTRUCTION”. The addition of the word “CARRIERES” to the Complainant’s distinctive mark does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. Said mark is clearly recognizable in the second level of the disputed domain name as the second and third word elements thereof. Neither the word “CARRIERES”, nor the additional dash or hyphen, serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from said mark. The generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.com”, is typically disregarded for the purposes of the comparison exercise.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business, is neither affiliated with it nor authorized by it to use the Complainant’s BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION registered trademark, does not carry out any activity for it or have any business with it. The Complainant asserts with reference to a screenshot featuring the disputed domain name that it is being used to redirect Internet users to a parking pages with commercial links and that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.
The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this case and accordingly has provided no submissions or evidence which would serve to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Respondent having failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case, and there being no facts or circumstances on the present record indicating that the Respondent may otherwise have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests therein.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s distinctive registered trademark. Previous panels under the Policy have determined that such mark is well-known (see, for example, CAC Case No. 101387, BOUYGUES S.A. v. Laura Clare). The registration of such mark pre-dates the creation of the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that it is inconceivable that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and/or without intent to target it or its trademark. The only reasonable interpretation of the addition of the French word for “careers” to the Complainant’s well-known mark in the disputed domain name is that, as the Complainant contends, the Respondent (which is based in France) intended to target job applicants seeking to work for the Complainant’s subsidiary. The Panel is satisfied that this intentional selection and targeting of the Complainant and its rights demonstrates registration and use in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a parking page with commercial links which, in this case, appear to relate principally to recruitment services. It is well-established in UDRP jurisprudence that such use constitutes use in bad faith even where the content may have been generated automatically by the Respondent’s domain name registrar, web host or domain name parking service provider, rather than by the Respondent itself. The Respondent is ultimately responsible for any such content appearing on the website associated with the disputed domain name.
In failing to file any Response, the Respondent has not availed itself of the opportunity to address the Complainant’s contentions or to advance any explanation for the registration and use of the disputed domain name which might have indicated that its actions were in good faith. On the basis of the present record, and in the absence of such a Response, the Panel cannot conceive of any reasonable explanation which might have been tendered by the Respondent regarding the disputed domain name.
|