Fr-vinci-constructions.com

The timeline behind fr-vinci-constructions.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Vinci and Vinci Construction v. world worldwidepost, worldwidepost Case No. D2025-1246 1. The Parties The Complainants are Vinci (the “First Complainant”) and Vinci Construction (the “Second Complainant”) (together “the Complainants”), France, represented by Cabinet Regimbeau, France. The Respondent is world worldwidepost, worldwidepost, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fr-vinci-constructions.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 26, 2025. On March 27, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 28, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy / Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on March 31, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on March 31, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 proceedings commenced on April 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 22, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 25, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on April 30, 2025. 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 The First Complainant, Vinci, is a company established in the sectors of concessions, energy and construction, with over 7,000 establishments and subsidiaries spread across more than 120 countries. Its turnover reached EUR 71.6 billion in 2023, and it has nearly 280,000 employees worldwide. Its main website is “www.vinci.com”. The Second Complainant, Vinci Construction, is a subsidiary of the First Complainant, Vinci. It is an established company in the construction sector, with expertise concentrated in three specific fields: - infrastructure dedicated to water (water and wastewater treatment plants), energy (solar and wind farms, hydroelectric facilities) and mobility (railroad lines, bicycle paths, etc.); - construction and renovation of buildings, and more generally, support for public and private-sector entities in relation to urban development and regeneration; - civil engineering structures, such as bridges, tunnels, dams and major industrial facilities. It currently comprises 1,300 entities and 119,000 employees spread across over 100 countries around the world and works on over 69,000 construction sites every year. Its main website is “www.vinciconstruction.com”. The Complainants are the owners of numerous trademarks registered worldwide composed, in whole or in part, of the words “VINCI CONSTRUCTION”, including: - VINCI CONSTRUCTION, French trademark No. 3247127 registered since September 23, 2003, and covering classes 6, 19, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 42; - VINCI CONSTRUCTION, European Union trademark No. 003394251 registered since February 21, 2005, and designating classes 6, 19, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 42; and VINCI CONSTRUCTION, United Kingdom trademark No. UK00903394251 registered since February 21, 2005, and covering classes 6, 19, 35, 36, 37, 39, and 42. Further, the Complainants own numerous domain names composed, in whole or in part, of the mark VINCI CONSTRUCTION including <vinci-construction.com>, registered on May 29, 2000, resolving to its main website and <vinci-constructions.com>, registered on February 14, 2014. The disputed domain name <fr-vinci-constructions.com> was registered on February 19, 2025. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website categorized as spam and is currently inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name <fr-vinci-constructions.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ prior VINCI CONSTRUCTION trademarks, domain names and company names. Furthermore, the Complainants claim that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection with the Complainants in any way. It is thus not an authorized dealer, distributor or licensee of the Complainants, nor has it been permitted by the Complainants to make use of their prior right. Finally, the Complainants state that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The worldwide reputation of the Complainants, their presence on the Internet and the fact that the disputed page 3 domain name reproduces the VINCI CONSTRUCTION trademark, preceded by the letters “fr”, and each word separated by a hyphen, indicates that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, the Complainants' prior trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name seems to divert consumer traffic to a website categorized as spam and thus also used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants Paragraph 10(e) of the UDRP Rules grants a panel the power to consolidate multiple domain name disputes. In assessing whether a complaint filed by multiple complainants may be brought against a single respondent, panels look at whether (i) the complainants have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants in a similar fashion, and (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.11.1. In this case, the Second Complainant, Vinci Construction is a wholly owned subsidiary of the First Complainant, Vinci. Therefore, they share a common legal interest in the VINCI CONSTRUCTION trademark and just as they have a common grievance against the Respondent, who has engaged in conduct that has affected them both in a similar fashion The Panel finds that in this case the consolidation would be equitable and procedurally efficient, and the Panel therefore accepts the consolidation of the Complainants. 6.2 Substantial issues According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainants. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. page 4 The Complainants have shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark VINCI CONSTRUCTION for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the letters “fr”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has not offered any explanation for having registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ distinctive trademark VINCI CONSTRUCTION and one of its official domain names <vinci-construction.com>. Given the circumstances of the case, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainants and their mark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent the finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the page 5 Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainants’ trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, and the provision by the Respondent of the false or incomplete contact details when registering the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates the well-known VINCI CONSTRUCTION trademark, that the Respondent has failed to participate in these proceedings, that the disputed domain name initially resolved to a webpage flagging the website as “spam”, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainants, and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. The Complainants have requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Second Complainant. 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 <fr-vinci-constructions.com> be transferred to the Second Complainant, Vinci Construction. /Knud Wallberg/ Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: May 19, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.