1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademark BOUYGUES CONTRUCTION and of the domain name <bouygues-construction.com>.
The Panel finds that the Complainant's trademark and domain name are fully recognizable in the disputed domain name as the substitution of the letter "i" with the letter "l" in the element construction has no significant impact in the confusing similarity assessment.
According to a consolidated case law in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in it, the confusing similarity threshold is met.
Moreover, it is significant to note that the distinctive element of the Complainant's trademark, i.e. BOUYGUES, is identically reproduced in the disputed domain name. As a matter of fact the misspelling touches the element "construction" which has a very limited distinctive character.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant's allegations according to which the disputed domain name appears to be a clear case of typosquatting.
Furthermore, the addition of “.com” is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.
As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.
2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
According to the information provided by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent, Mr. Robert Cellabos is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor he is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark “BOUYGUES CONTRUCTION”.
Additionally, the disputed domain name links to a PPC webpage.
The Panel finds that such use discloses an absence of a bona fide offering of goods or services and of a legitimate noncommercial/ fair use of the disputed domain name. In the view of the Panel, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark, the sponsored links are probably used by the Respondent to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the "BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION" trademark.
3. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith
The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademark BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION;
(ii) the Complainant’s trademark BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION enjoys a certain degree of reputation in its field. Therefore it is hardly conceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name being not aware of the Complainant’s rights on the trademark. This is even more true in this case as the Respondent used the element “CONSTRUCTLON”, misspelling of “construction”, which is the Complainant’s field of business;
(ii) the disputed domain name is a clear and obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark (i.e. typosquatting).
Previous panels found that typosquatting discloses an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting to find a website related to the complainant.
As regards use in bad faith, the disputed domain name currently resolves to PPC webpages. The links sponsored through the disputed domain name are not explicable by a "dictionary meaning" of the word "BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTLON”. As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is used to exploit the reputation and distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark for the Respondent's commercial gain and such use is considered in bad faith.
All above considered the Panel finds the evidence submitted as sufficient to prove use and registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
|