{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103667", "time_of_filling": "2021-03-18 09:04:49", "domain_names": [ "bouygues-batiment.net" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "steven babi" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is a member of an international diversified group of companies engaged in construction, telecoms and media and owns and uses the abovementioned BOUYGUES BATIMENT in its construction business.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant also owns, through its subsidiary BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION, a number of Internet domain names including the same distinctive wording BOUYGUES BATIMENT®, such as which was registered on 29 November 2009.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 11 January 2021 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nThere is no information available about the Respondent, who availed of a privacy service to conceal his identity on the published WhoIs, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar to the Center in response to the request for verification of the registration details of the disputed domain name in the course of this proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the registrant of the disputed domain name.\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": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nThe Complainant claims rights in the BOUYGUES BATIMENT mark which it acquired through its abovementioned international trademark registration details of which it has provided in an annex to the Complaint, and other registrations in which it claims rights. Complainant also claims rights in the mark accrued through its extensive use by the Complainant’s group of companies in its construction business including on the Internet.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a diversified group of industrial companies was founded by Francis Bouygues in 1952 and has grown to have a substantial reparation and goodwill in three sectors of economic activity, namely construction, telecoms and media, operating in nearly 90 countries with net profit attributable to the Group amounting to €696 million.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is composed of its BOUYGUES BATIMENT mark in its entirety and alleges that, for the purposes of the Policy, the disputed domain name is therefore identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) <.net> extension is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark as the suffix does not change the overall impression of there being a connection between the disputed domain name its BOUYGUES BATIMENT trademark. In this regard the Complainant refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0 §1.11.1, “the applicable Top Level Domain (“TDL”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusion similarity test”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, adding that according to the decision of the panel in Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in issue. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of production to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails so to do, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Citing Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group, Forum Case No. FA 1781783, (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).”)\r\n\r\nThe Complainant furthermore asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorized by, the Complainant in any way, nor does the Respondent carry out any activity for, or have any business with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that no license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s BOUYGUES BATIMENT mark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nReferring to a screen-capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which has been exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the Complainant contends that as the disputed domain name is not being used to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use as it resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Citing Mayflower Transit LLC v. Domains by Proxy Inc.\/Yariv Moshe WIPO Case No. D2007-1695 (\"Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark for the purpose of offering sponsored links does not of itself qualify as a bona fide use.\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because it consists of Complainant’s well-known registered trademark, the Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s rights and it is being used for the purposes of domain parking.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that its distinctive trademark BOUYGUES BATIMENT is well-known throughout the world, as can be illustrated by the results of a search on GOOGLE’s search engine which have been presented in an annex to the Complaint. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends therefore that the registrant of the disputed domain name, which is identical to its mark and its associated domain name , must have had actual and constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s registered mark and the reputation of its business when the disputed domain name was registered. Citing BOUYGUES v. 1&1 Internet Limited CAC Case No. 101586, (“The Respondent registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's well-known trademark [BOUYGUES BATIMENT].”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that consequently, given Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant, the distinctiveness of its trademark and its goodwill and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its mark.\r\n\r\nAs the aforementioned screen-capture of the web page to which the disputed domain name resolves shows, the disputed domain name is being used as the address of a parking page with commercial links. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the screen-capture proves that the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website for its own commercial gain. The Complainant submits that this amounts to bad faith use of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy. Citing for instance StudioCanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC \/ Sudjam Admin, Sudjam LLC WIPO Case No. D2018-0497 (“In that circumstance, whether the commercial gain from misled Internet users is gained by the Respondent or by the Registrar (or by another third party), it remains that the Respondent controls and cannot (absent some special circumstance) disclaim responsibility for, the content appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolve […] so the Panel presumes that the Respondent has allowed the disputed domain name to be used with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.”).\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nNo 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": [ "Mr James Jude Bridgeman" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-04-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of international trademark BOUYGUES BATIMENT, registration number 723515 registered on 22 November 1999 for services in class 37 for which it has provided a print-out of the registration details.", "decision_domains": { "BOUYGUES-BATIMENT.NET": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }