{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106192", "time_of_filling": "2024-01-25 15:12:49", "domain_names": [ "bouyguebatiments-iles-de-france.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Gerald Jean Marcel Billion (Gerald Jean Marcel Billion)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant, BOUYGUES S.A., is a diversified group of companies centered on three sectors of activity: construction, media and telecoms. The Complainant operates in over 80 countries and has reported a turnover of EUR 44.3bn in 2022.<\/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 <bouyguebatiments-iles-de-france.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>.<\/span> <\/span>Complainant<\/strong>'<\/span>s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

The Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark BOUYGUES BATIMENT, in so far as the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety. The deletion of the letter 's’'in the word 'bouygues', the addition of the letter 's' in the word 'batiment', and the addition of the misspelled geographical terms 'iles de France' in the disputed domain name string are insufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant's trade mark BOUYGUES BATIMENT. On the contrary, both the deletion and addition of these letters and terms worsen the likelihood of confusion as they refer to the Complainant's subsidiary Bouygues Bâtiment Ile de France. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain ('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 asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. Neither licence nor authorisation has been given to 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 is not known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a page under construction and it has been used in connection with a phishing scheme; and that such use of the disputed domain name is neither bona fide nor legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/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 avers that the trade mark BOUYGUES BATIMENT is well-known and distinctive, and that its notoriety has been acknowledged in previous UDRP decisions, eg CAC Case No. 10586, BOUYGUES  v 1&1 Internet Limited. Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade mark BOUYGUES BATIMENT, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark BOUYGUES BATIMENT.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the misspelling in the disputed domain name supports a finding of Respondent's bad faith registration.<\/p>\n

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

The disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. The Respondent has attempted to pass off as one of the Complainant's employees in order to obtain undue offers from the Complainant's suppliers.  <\/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>. <\/span>Respondent<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

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