{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104402",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-03-09 09:14:31",
    "domain_names": [
        "besix.cam"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Besix Group"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Mr. Etienne Wéry (Ulys)",
    "respondent": [
        "Lin Chen"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, Besix Group, is a leading Belgian group in the construction sector. Active since 1909, the group is based in Brussels and operates in Europe, the Middle East, Oceania, Africa, North America and Asia. In 2018, BESIX had a turnover of 2.54 billion euros and 15,000 employees worldwide.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several registered trademarks corresponding to or including the term BESIX, covering various countries worldwide. The Complainant also claims to be the owner of several domain names corresponding to or including the term BESIX. The Panel observes that the domain name <besix.com> refers to the Complainant’s official website. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <besix.cam> was registered on February 6, 2022 and does not appear to refer to an active website. The Complaint provides evidence of the use of e-mail addresses linked to the disputed domain name.   ",
    "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.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a criminal complaint with the police and an investigating judge (juge d'instruction) regarding fraudulent activities through e-mail addresses, but the Panel observes that this criminal complaint predates the registration date of the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to trademarks in which it has rights. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no legal relation nor business relationship with the Complainant, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have any registered right corresponding to the disputed domain name. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate use but rather for illegal activity. Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s apparent intention of disrupting the business of the Complainant, through contacting its co-contractors under the identity of the Complainant but using a different e-mail address to place fraudulent orders, should be interpreted as an attempt to knowingly create a risk of confusion between the Respondent and the Complainant. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: \r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.",
    "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": [
        "Flip Petillion"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant invokes several registered trademarks in this case, including the following:\r\n\r\n- BESIX, Benelux word mark No. 0872629 registered since November 23, 2009 in classes 35, 36, 37, 40 and 42;\r\n\r\n- BESIX, international figurative mark No. 1039445 registered since April 14, 2010 in classes 35, 36, 37, 40 and 42, and covering various countries.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BESIX.CAM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}