{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104353", "time_of_filling": "2022-02-14 09:00:51", "domain_names": [ "fr-bouyguesbatiment.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "AHMADOU SY" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant draws Panel attention to previous UDRP decisions:\r\n\r\nIt is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nForum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”).\r\n\r\nCAC Case No. 101586, BOUYGUES v. 1&1 Internet Limited (“The Respondent registered the Disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's well-known trademark [BOUYGUES BATIMENT].”).\r\n\r\nWIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows.\r\n\r\nWIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.\r\n\r\nCAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOUYGUES BATIMENT mark as the domain name fully incorporates the BOUYGUES BATIMENT mark, adding a hyphen and the abbreviation \"FR\" (for France) which, according to the Complainant, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BOUYGUES BATIMENT mark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.\r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark BOUYGUES BATIMENT, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant provides that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark and the domain name associated.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent, who is French, has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is well-known, as it has activities all around the world, and all the Google results of the search of the terms “FR BOUYGUES BATIMENT” refer to the Complainant’s entity BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION, i.e. the parent company of BOUYGUES BATIMENT.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. 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 domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant provides that although the disputed domain name appears to be unused, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. ", "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": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "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": [ "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-03-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "BOUYGUES S.A. (the Complainant) is a diversified group of industrial companies centred on three sectors of activity: construction, with Bouygues Construction, Bouygues Immobilier, and Colas; and telecoms and media, with French TV channel TF1 and Bouygues Telecom. Operating in over 80 countries, the Complainant’s net profit attributable to the Group amounted to 696 million euros. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BOUYGUES BATIMENT, such as the international trademark BOUYGUES BATIMENT n°723515 registered since November 22, 1999, and the European trademark BOUYGUES BATIMENT n°001217223 registered since June 23, 1999. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant's subsidiary BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION owns a number of domain names including the same distinctive wording BOUYGUES BATIMENT, such as registered since November 29, 2009.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of a portfolio of trademarks BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION, such as the international trademark BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION, n°732339 registered since April 13, 2000.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on February 5, 2022, and resolves to a parking page.", "decision_domains": { "FR-BOUYGUESBATIMENT.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }