Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-103463

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is the owner of the following International registered trademark:

BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION, word mark, registered on April 13, 2000 under number 732339 in use class 37 and designated in respect of 51 territories. The mark has proceeded to registration in respect of the vast majority of said territories.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

Founded in 1952, the Complainant is a group of companies centred on construction, telecoms and media. The Complainant’s group operates in over 90 countries and has just over 58,000 employees. The Complainant is the proprietor of the BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION registered trademark, which mark also corresponds to the name of one of its corporate subsidiaries. Said subsidiary designs, builds and operates public and private buildings, transport infrastructure, and energy and communications networks. Said subsidiary is also the registrant of the corresponding domain name <bouygues-construction.com>, registered on May 10, 1999.

According to the WhoIs record, the disputed domain name was created on November 6, 2020. It resolves to a parking page with commercial links. It is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION registered trademark, which is included in its entirety, along with the term “CARRIERES” (which means “CAREERS” in French). The addition of such term does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademarks and does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and associated trademarks.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not acquired trademark rights in this term and is not known as the disputed domain name in the WhoIs database, indicating that it is not commonly known thereby. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it to use the Complainant’s BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION registered trademark, and does not carry out any activity for it or have any business with it.

The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Previous panels under the Policy have determined that the Complainant’s BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION mark is well-known. Such mark is incorporated entirely in the disputed domain name. By adding the French term for careers in the disputed domain name, the Respondent intends to target job applicants seeking to work for the Complainant’s subsidiary. The Respondent is from France. It is reasonable to infer given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of said mark.

Bad faith is further illustrated by the disputed domain name’s resolution to a parking page with commercial links. The Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its own website by way of the Complainant’s trademark, which is evidence of bad faith.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

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).

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).

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).

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.

The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name features the Complainant’s BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION registered trademark in its entirety prefixed by the word “CARRIERES” and with a dash or hyphen used as a separator between the words “BOUYGUES” and “CONSTRUCTION”. The addition of the word “CARRIERES” to the Complainant’s distinctive mark does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. Said mark is clearly recognizable in the second level of the disputed domain name as the second and third word elements thereof. Neither the word “CARRIERES”, nor the additional dash or hyphen, serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from said mark. The generic Top-Level Domain, in this case “.com”, is typically disregarded for the purposes of the comparison exercise.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business, is neither affiliated with it nor authorized by it to use the Complainant’s BOUYGUES CONSTRUCTION registered trademark, does not carry out any activity for it or have any business with it. The Complainant asserts with reference to a screenshot featuring the disputed domain name that it is being used to redirect Internet users to a parking pages with commercial links and that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.

The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this case and accordingly has provided no submissions or evidence which would serve to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Respondent having failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case, and there being no facts or circumstances on the present record indicating that the Respondent may otherwise have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests therein.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s distinctive registered trademark. Previous panels under the Policy have determined that such mark is well-known (see, for example, CAC Case No. 101387, BOUYGUES S.A. v. Laura Clare). The registration of such mark pre-dates the creation of the disputed domain name. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that it is inconceivable that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant and/or without intent to target it or its trademark. The only reasonable interpretation of the addition of the French word for “careers” to the Complainant’s well-known mark in the disputed domain name is that, as the Complainant contends, the Respondent (which is based in France) intended to target job applicants seeking to work for the Complainant’s subsidiary. The Panel is satisfied that this intentional selection and targeting of the Complainant and its rights demonstrates registration and use in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a parking page with commercial links which, in this case, appear to relate principally to recruitment services. It is well-established in UDRP jurisprudence that such use constitutes use in bad faith even where the content may have been generated automatically by the Respondent’s domain name registrar, web host or domain name parking service provider, rather than by the Respondent itself. The Respondent is ultimately responsible for any such content appearing on the website associated with the disputed domain name.

In failing to file any Response, the Respondent has not availed itself of the opportunity to address the Complainant’s contentions or to advance any explanation for the registration and use of the disputed domain name which might have indicated that its actions were in good faith. On the basis of the present record, and in the absence of such a Response, the Panel cannot conceive of any reasonable explanation which might have been tendered by the Respondent regarding the disputed domain name.