The Complainant is a company serving in four main areas: construction, energy, media and telecom. The Complainant is present in over 80 countries and its net profit attributable to the Group amounted to 56,8 billion euros in 2024. Its subsidiary BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION is a global player in the fields of building, public works, energy, and services and it designs, builds and operates buildings and structures aiming to improve the quality of people's living and working environment: public and private buildings, transport infrastructures and energy and communications networks.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” dating back to 2000 in various countries and domain name incorporating “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” trademark as <bouygues-construction.com>.<\/p>\n
On July 4, 2025; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <buoygues-constroction.com>. The disputed domain name is currently inactive at the decision date.<\/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:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <buoygues-constroction.com> identically contains the Complainant’s trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION”. The Complainant claims that the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION in the sense that the letter “U” in the second word is changed to “O” is a characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. It is asserted that the previous panels have found the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names.<\/p>\n
Thus, it is claimed that the disputed domain name <buoygues-constroction.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
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 with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is neither a licensee nor authorized agent of the Complainant nor in any other manner authorized to sell Complainant’s products or use its trademark(s).<\/p>\n
The Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links at the time of the Complaint. It further refers to past panel decisions that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark. The Complainant refers to a previous panel decision recognizing the well-known status of the trademark such as CAC UDRP case No. 101387, BOUYGUES v. Laura Clare, <bouygeus-construction.com>. The Complainant claims that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is claimed that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and refers to previous panel decisions holding such actions as evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it was claimed that the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links, which is an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, and this is evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also claimed to be indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <buoygues-constroction.com> in bad faith.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-08-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” trademarks, such as the international trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” n°732339 registered since April 13, 2000 and the European Union trademark “BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION” n°001589159 registered since May 16, 2001.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <bouygues-construction.com>, registered since May 10, 1999.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "buoygues-constroction.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }