The Complainant is a leading French company providing building and infrastructure construction in several countries. In 2023, its sales amounted to 2700 million euros.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names, including with the term “SPIE BATIGNOLLES”, such as <spiebatignolles.com> registered on April 27, 2009.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2024 and redirects to a parking page. Besides, MX servers are configured.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
A. Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “SPIE BATIGNOLLES” as it is identically reproduced.<\/p>\n
The addition of the generic term “GROUP” referring to the structure of the Complainant is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names. It is well established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”.<\/p>\n
Moreover, it is well established that TLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademarks.<\/p>\n
Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “SPIE BATIGNOLLES”.<\/p>\n
B. No rights or legitimate interests<\/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. Thus, the Respondent is not known as 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, and he is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “SPIE BATIGNOLLES”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking 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.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
C. Registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “SPIE BATIGNOLLES”. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name several years after the registration of the trademark “SPIE BATIGNOLLES” by the Complainant, which has established a strong reputation while using this trademark.<\/p>\n
Past panels have recognized the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
Besides, most results for the denomination “SPIE BATIGNOLLES GROUP” refer to the Complainant and its subsidiary.<\/p>\n
Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking 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
As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
Finally, MX servers are configured which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes.<\/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
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": "
To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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 have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Rodolfo Rivas Rea" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns several trademarks for “SPIE BATIGNOLLES” such as:<\/p>\n
International trademark registration “SPIE BATIGNOLLES” no. 535026 registered since February 2, 1989;<\/p>\n
European trademark registration “SPIE BATIGNOLLES” no. 3540226 registered since December 5, 2006;<\/p>\n
French trademark registration “SPIE BATIGNOLLES” no. 1494661 registered since October 19, 1988.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "spiebatignollesgroup.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }