{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105910", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-26 09:46:59", "domain_names": [ "bougyues-construction.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Cloud DNS Ltd" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a diversified group of industrial companies active in the following sectors: construction, with Bouygues Construction, Bouygues Immobilier, and Colas; and telecoms and media, with French TV channel TF1 and Bouygues Telecom. Operating in nearly 80 countries, the Complainant’s net profit attributable to the Group amounted to 973 million euros. <\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <bougyues-construction.com> was registered on October 18, 2023 and resolves to an inactive page and <\/span>MX servers are configured.<\/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 <bougyues-construction.com>.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "


COMPLAINANT:

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <bougyues-construction.com> is confusingly similar to its trademarks. The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks BOUYGUES and BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION (i.e. the reversal of the letters “Y” and “G”) is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. <\/span><\/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


II. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name

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.

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

The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant provides that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. 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.


III. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith

According 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 trademarks and the domain name associated.

The Complainant further states that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, the Respondent should have known about the Complainant at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant and its subsidiary BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION are well-known, as BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION is a world player in the fields of building, public works, energy, and services.<\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the misspelling in the domain name can state that this practical was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. <\/p>\n

Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive 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.<\/p>\n

Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records<\/span> which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. <\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span>

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/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": [ "Barbora Donathová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

BOUYGUES S.A. (the Complainant) states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of a portfolio of trademarks BOUYGUES and BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION, such as:<\/span><\/p>\n