{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106097", "time_of_filling": "2023-12-21 10:31:29", "domain_names": [ "bouygue-entreprises.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Sahad Mohammed Riviera (Sahari Muti Inc)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant, BOUYGUES S.A., is a diversified group of companies centred on three sectors of activity: construction, media and telecoms. The Complainant operates in over 80 countries and has reported a net profit of c. EUR 1billion.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore made no factual allegations.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <bouygue-entreprises.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I<\/strong>. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <bouygue-entreprises.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. The suppression of the letter 's' in 'bouygue' is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trade mark. Besides, addition of the French generic word 'entreprises' ('companies' in English language) in the string is insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark. On the contrary, the additional generic term worsens the risk of confusion in so far as it directly refers to the Complainant's subsidiary Bouygues Telecom and its trade mark. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain ('the gTLD') suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusingly similar under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

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

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, nor does it carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. There is no contractual arrangement between the parties to that effect, nor has the Complainant otherwise authorised the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant's trade mark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on the Complainant's behalf.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent's website mirrors the authentication page of Complainant's subsidiary Bouygues Telecom website; that the Respondent's website may be used for the purpose of collecting information from the Complainant's customers; and that such practice evidences the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

III<\/strong>. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the trade mark BOUYGUES was already well-known for decades (its notoriety has been acknowledged in previous UDRP decisions, eg. CAC Case No. 103800, BOUYGUES v ERIC DENIS) and protected worldwide at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, such that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

Use<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings in so far as it is connected to a website which mimics the Complainant's subsidiary official customer portal. The Respondent's main purpose with the disputed domain name is to unduly collect sensitive data from the Complainant’s customers. The Respondent's behaviour would therefore fall within the remit of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has therefore failed to advance any substantive case on the merits.  <\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP 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": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-15 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark, amongst others:<\/p>\n