Westmore · UDRP DecisionBouygues.sucks
The Panel ordered transfer of <bouygues.sucks>. It found the domain identical to the Complainant’s BOUYGUES trademark after disregarding the “.sucks” gTLD. Although the domain resolved to a criticism website, the Respondent submitted no response or evidence supporting legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel emphasized that the posts were anonymous and appeared to have been scraped from third-party review websites, and concluded that the Respondent appeared to be pursuing a business model aimed at extorting brand owners under the pretext of free speech. All three UDRP elements were satisfied.
The timeline behind bouygues.sucks
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind bouygues.sucks — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates that use of a trademark in a “.sucks” domain does not automatically establish or defeat a free-speech interest. The Panel expressly acknowledged that criticism websites may, in some circumstances, support rights or legitimate interests, but treated the actual operation of this website—and the absence of supporting evidence—as decisive. Anonymous, apparently scraped content was insufficient to establish genuine noncommercial criticism or a bona fide grievance platform.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bouygues SA v. Pat Honey Salt, Honey Salt ltd Case No. D2021-0672 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bouygues SA, France, represented by ALTANA, France. The Respondent is Pat Honey Salt, Honey Salt ltd, Turks and Caicos Islands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bouygues.sucks> is registered with Rebel Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 4, 2021. On March 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 8, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 18, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 18, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on March 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2021. On May 11, 2021, the Center granted the Respondent a five day period in which to indicate whether it wished to participate in this proceeding. The Respondent did not respond to the Center’s communication. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on May 28, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background A. Complainant The Complainant is a public limited company incorporated in France and founded in 1952, operating as a conglomerate in over 90 countries worldwide, under the trade mark BOUYGUES (the “Trade Mark”), primarily in the construction, telecommunications, and media sectors. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trade Mark, including French registration No. 92408370, with a registration date of March 3, 1992. The Complainant is also the owner of many domain names comprising the Trade Mark, including <bouygues.com>, registered since December 31, 1997. B. Respondent The Respondent is apparently domiciled in the Turks and Caicos Islands. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on December 11, 2020. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name is resolved to a website containing anonymous posts which are critical of the Complainant and of its business (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration. Disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.sucks”, the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, it is expressly claimed on the Website that it is operated by a non-profit organization. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel is cognizant of the fact that, in certain circumstances, operators of “sucks” websites – albeit such term typically appearing at the second level of a domain name – may be able to demonstrate rights of legitimate interests, based upon concepts of free speech. In the present proceeding, the Respondent has not filed any evidence or submissions in support of any such rights or legitimate interests. The Panel notes also that each of the postings on the Website is both critical of the Complainant and of its business and anonymized. In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore finds that, for the purposes of the Policy, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In light of the manner of the use of the disputed domain name highlighted in section 6.B. above, the Panel finds that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out. The introductory statement at the top of the Website is as follows: “Bouygues Sucks. Bouygues S.A. (French pronunciation: [bwig]) is an industrial group headquartered in the 8th arrondissement of Paris, France. Bouygues is listed on Euronext Paris exchange and is a blue chip in the CAC 40 stock market index. The company was founded in 1952 by Francis Bouygues and since 1989 has been led by his son Martin Bouygues.” A former employee shares his experience on “indeed.com”, "Bouygues is a terrible company. Not only do they treat staff badly, they cut corners in all aspects of construction. Everything they have built suffers from a prolonged series of defects, that are rarely rectified". Underneath the introductory statement are a series of postings, purportedly from either former or current employees of the Complainant. Each of the postings on the Website has been made in anonymized format, under the guise of unidentified former employees, or current employees. The Panel also notes that the reviews seem to be scraped from third party websites such as “Glasdoor” or “Indeed” such that the Respondent cannot claim to be airing a grievance against the Complainant, nor even genuinely providing a platform for others to do so; the Respondent appears to be seeking to create a business model (to extort brand owners) on the pretext of free speech. The Panel therefore finds, in all the circumstances, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <bouygues.sucks> be transferred to the Complainant. Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Dated: June 10, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bouygues.sucks
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.