PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:
COMPLAINANT:
Complainant considers that the dispute domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks BOUYGUES and BOUYGUES TRAVAUX PUBLICS.
Complainant establishes that its trademarks “BOUYGUES” and “BOUYGUES TRAVAUX PUBLICS” are distinctive and well-known.
Additionally, Complainant contends that the addition of the abbreviation “FR” (for France) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks, which does not prevent any likelihood of confusion.
Complainant emphasizes that the addition of a specific top level of a domain name such as “.COM”, “.ORG”, “.TV” or “.NET” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining the identity or similarity of domain name and a trademark.
- Complainant further asserts that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant recalls that it must make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that once such case is made, Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name nor under the distinctive part “BOUYGUES” or “BOUYGUES TRAVAUX PUBLICS” before the beginning of the dispute, nor ownership of any identical or similar trademark, nor use of any identical or similar brand by the Respondent before the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent was never granted neither license nor authorization to make any use of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, Complainant highlights that Respondent did not use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because Respondent has not provided the trademarked goods and services but has used the trademark for cybersquatting practice.
Finally, the disputed domain name resolves to a page under construction.
- Complaint finally comes down to the conclusion that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name amounts to bad faith.
First, Complainant maintains that there is no indication that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bona fide and that it appears reasonable to infer that the Respondent, who is French, has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
Besides, Complainant affirms that it has a considerable reputation due to its expanded exposure and the distinctiveness of its trademark.
Complainant further asserts that the Internet makes it easier to find out that it is well-known across national borders because a simple search on the Internet would reveal Complainant trademark and domain names presence.
Thus, Complainant claims that it is not conceivable 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, an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law, or an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent's website.
Regarding the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent, Complainant relies that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.
Besides, Complainant puts forward that its trademarks are distinctive and well-known in its industry. Therefore, Complainant believes that Respondent concealed its identity is also a factor to deduce bad faith.
Finally, Complainant contends that there is no plausible reason why Respondent registered the disputed domain name other than to intentionally attempt to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website or another online location, and to tarnish the trademarks at issue, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks.
RESPONDENT:
Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint, and is therefore in default.
|