FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
THE COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n
The Complainant is a French company, a major player in transport infrastructure activities. It designs, builds, and maintains mobility infrastructure and sustainable development projects around the world. It employs around 62,000 people globally and undertakes about 60,000 projects completed via a network of 2,000 construction units and 3,500 material production and recycling sites in some fifty countries on five different continents. In 2025, the Complainant’s consolidated revenue totalled EUR 16 billion.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns several trademarks including the terms “COLAS”, such as:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <colas.com> registered since March 10, 1997.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <colasincs.com> (hereinafter, the „Disputed Domain Name“) was registered on July 17th<\/sup>, 2026 and resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s logo and impersonating them. Besides, MX servers are configured<\/p>\n According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is English. The facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent.<\/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 First element: Similarity<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its trademarks and branded services COLAS.<\/p>\n The addition of the term “INCS” (the plural or possessive form of Inc) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark COLAS.<\/p>\n Moreover, 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 COLAS. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n Finally, past panel confirmed the Complainant’s rights over the term “COLAS”. Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2020-2417, COLAS v. Elliott Murray <colas-projects.com>.<\/em><\/p>\n Thus, the Complainant is of the opinion that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark COLAS.<\/p>\n Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/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 COLAS 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 COLAS or apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n Finally, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a page displaying the Complainant’s logo. This page may be used for the purpose of collecting personal information from the Complainant's customers. This use cannot be considered a bona fide offer of services or a legitimate use of domain names, since the website misleads consumers into believing that they are accessing the Complainant's website.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark COLAS.<\/p>\n The Complainant has been the owner of the international trademark COLAS since as early as 2000. The registration and use of the trademark COLAS therefore significantly predate the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Prior decision confirms the notoriety of the trademark COLAS, see WIPO Case No. D2023-2344, COLAS v. Elsa Linerudt (“The Complainant’s trademark COLAS is distinctive and well known”).<\/em><\/p>\n Besides, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s visuals. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the Disputed Domain Name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark, which evidences bad faith.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website reproducing the Complainant’s visuals.<\/p>\n Therefore, by using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial purposes, internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In addition, the Respondent may collect personal information through this website, including passwords.<\/p>\n As previous decisions have held, bad faith is characterized where the Respondent makes such use of the domain name. Finally, MX servers are configured, which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail 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 RESPONDENT<\/p>\n Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/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": [
"Victor Garcia Padilla"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-31 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks \" COLAS\":<\/p>\n International trademark COLAS No. 753190 registered on February 16, 2001; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <colas.com> registered since March 10, 1997.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"colasincs.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n