{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107004", "time_of_filling": "2024-10-29 13:05:31", "domain_names": [ "bouyguescontructions-uk.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "BOUYGUES" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "David Robert" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that it was founded in 1952 and is a diversified group of industrial companies. Its business consists of four sectors: Construction, Energies, Media and Telecoms. The Complainant claims that it operates in over 80 countries and its net profit amounts to 1,040 million euros.
Complainant’s subsidiary, “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”, is a world player in the fields of building, public works, energy and services and it operates the website http:\/\/www.bouygues-construction.com\/. 
The disputed domain name was registered on October 25, 2024 and the Complainant alleges that it resolves to a parking page. “MX servers” are configured.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the addition of the letter “S” at the end of the term “CONSTRUCTION” and the geographical term “UK” for the “United Kingdom” is not sufficient to avoid confusion. 
The addition of the term “UK” reinforces the risk of confusion as it refers to the Complainant’s subsidiary activities in the United Kingdom and the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. 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 trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. 
It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. The Complainant refers to past UDRP decisions that have established that the “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” mark is well-known.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n

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

The Complainant relies on the “passive holding” doctrine and previous UDRP decisions where panels held that 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

The fact that “MX” servers are configured, in the Complainant’s view, indicates that the disputed domain name may be actively used for e-mail purposes and any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant states the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/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": "

The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the \"Factual Background\" section above<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed<\/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": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-11-24 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registration:<\/p>\n

-    International Trademark Registration under the Madrid system No. 732339 “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” (word), registration date is April 13, 2000 and protected inter alia in Albania, Armenia, Benelux, Germany, Italy, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Serbia, Spain, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also refers to its portfolio of domain names owned by its subsidiary, including <bouygues-construction.com>, registered since May 10, 1999.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "bouyguescontructions-uk.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }