{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106267", "time_of_filling": "2024-02-16 08:50:31", "domain_names": [ "bouygues-concession.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Christophe Reussite" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant represents a diversified group of industrial companies. 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 sales amounted to 44.3 billion euros in 2022.<\/span><\/p>\n

Besides the registered national trademark BOUYGUES and the international registration of the same denomination, the Complainant owns several domain names which includes the word element “BOUYGUES”, such as the domain name <bouygues.com> registered since December 31, 1997.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <boursobonk.com> was registered on January 23, 2023 and resolves to a parking page.<\/p>\n

No information is known about the Respondent who registered the disputed domain name <bouygues-concession.com> under privacy service.<\/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' CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <bouygues-concession.com> and the Complainant’s registered trademark BOUYGUES and associated domain names are confusingly similar.<\/p>\n

Particularly, the Complainant contends that its trademark is fully contained within the disputed domain name and points out that the addition of the generic particle “concession” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark BOUYGUES.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also points out that the applicable Top-Level suffix “.com” does not per se prevent likelihood of confusion.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/span><\/strong><\/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.<\/span> <\/span><\/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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page shows, in view of the Complainant, that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states that due to a reputation of the well-known trademark BOUYGUES, which was confirmed in prior domain names’ disputes, the Respondents could not be unaware of the Complainant rights over the name BOUYGUES at the time of the disputed domain name registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, so that 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, according to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/span><\/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).<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/span><\/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": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies on the following trademark registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n