{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105222", "time_of_filling": "2023-02-24 10:09:01", "domain_names": [ "spiebatignolles.pro" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "SPIE BATIGNOLLES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Jean Vuibert" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "
\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant is a French construction company based in Neuilly-sur-Seine. The company provides building and infrastructure construction in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The disputed domain name <\/span><<\/span>spiebatignolles.pro<\/span>> was registered on February 19<\/span>, 2023, <\/span>and redirects to a parking page with commercial links. <\/p>", "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 <spiebatignolles.pro>.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

\n
\n
\n
\n

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT: <\/span><\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <spiebatignolles.pro><\/span> is identical to its trademarks and branded services SPIE BATIGNOLLES. The disputed domain name includes it in its entirety.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant contends that the addition <\/span>of the New generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.PRO” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark SPIE BATIGNOLLES of the Complainant. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated and refers to the WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, <\/span>F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

II. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant further 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SPIE BATIGNOLLES, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant provides that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. <\/span>Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

III. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <spiebatignolles.pro> is identical to its trademarks. <\/span>The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark SPIE BATIGNOLLES by the Complainant, which has established a strong reputation while using this trademark<\/span>. <\/span>Besides, all the Google results for the denomination SPIE BATIGNOLLES refer to the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links<\/span>. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant states that the MX servers are configured,<\/span> which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

RESPONDENT:
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Barbora Donathová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-03-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

\n
\n
\n
\n

The Complainant owns several trademarks, “SPIE BATIGNOLLES” such as<\/span>:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  • \n

    International trademark registration SPIE BATIGNOLLES n° 535026 registered since February 17, 1989;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    European trademark registration SPIE BATIGNOLLES n° 3540226 registered since October 31, 2003; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  • \n

    French trademark registration SPIE BATIGNOLLES n° 1494661 registered since October 19, 1988.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    The Complainant is also the owner of domain names, including the distinctive wording SPIE BATIGNOLLES, such as <spiebatignolles.fr> registered on July 29, 2004 and <spiebatignolles.com> registered on April 27, 2009<\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>", "decision_domains": { "spiebatignolles.pro": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }