{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103173",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-07-17 09:08:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "buoygues-construction.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BOUYGUES"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "36 karatt"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French diversified group of industrial companies organized around three sectors: construction, telecoms and media operating in nearly 90 countries.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a global player in construction, with operations in more than 60 countries. It designs, builds and operates projects in the sectors of building, infrastructure and industry. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on June 29, 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the inversion of the letters “O” and “U” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and this is a case of typosquatting. The Complainant refers to decisions of previous panels in respect of the Complainant and its “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” mark.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name in the Whois database, and has not acquired trademark rights. \u2028\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. \u2028The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name, except for the phishing scheme.\r\nIt demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to previous panels that have established that the “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” trademark is well-known.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nThe 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 disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. \r\n\r\nThe incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\nThe Complainant also indicates that although the disputed domain name now appears to be inactive, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-08-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademark:\r\n- International word trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” No.732339, registered on April 13th, 2000.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BUOYGUES-CONSTRUCTION.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}