{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105854", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-09 09:34:45", "domain_names": [ "bouygues-construrction.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Yang Bo" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant BOUYGUES S.A. was founded by Francis Bouygues in 1952 and is being a diversified group of industrial companies structured by a strong corporate culture. Its businesses are centered 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.<\/span><\/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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

A. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <bouygues-construrction.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks. <\/p>\n

The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION® is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant recalls WIPO Case No. D2020-3457, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Name Redacted <arcelormltal.com>.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, 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. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

 B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/u><\/p>\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.<\/p>\n

The 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.<\/p>\n

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

Furthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

 C. The disputed domain name <\/em>was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <bouygues-construrction.com> is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademarks and the domain name associated. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks BOUYGUES®.<\/p>\n

Thus, the Respondent should have known about the Complainant at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION® is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the 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 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.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>", "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": [ "Vojtěch Trapl" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks BOUYGUES® and BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION®, such as:<\/span><\/p>\n