Vincifacilities-uk.com

The timeline behind vincifacilities-uk.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, VINCI CONSTRUCTION v. anthony Rich, ethical Case No. D2026-1354 1. The Parties The Complainants are VINCI, France, and VINCI CONSTRUCTION, France, represented by Cabinet Regimbeau, France. The Respondent is anthony Rich, ethical, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vincifacilities-uk.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 30, 2026. On March 31, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 2026, 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 April 2, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on April 2, 2026. 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 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Andrea Jaeger-Lenz as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2026. 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 Complainant in this proceeding is comprised of the companies VINCI and VINCI CONSTRUCTION, both seated in France and part of the VINCI Group of companies, VINCI CONSTRUCTION being a subsidiary of VINCI (hereinafter both entities referred to as the “Complainant”). The VINCI Group is active in the area of concessions, energy, construction and infrastructure development with over 7,000 establishments and subsidiaries across more than 120 countries, reaching a turnover of 74,6 billion Euro in 2025 with nearly 294,000 employees worldwide. The Complainant owns, amongst others, the following trademarks (as per Annex 4.1 to the Complaint): European Union (“EU”) trademark no. 008203531 VINCI FACILITIES (fig.), registered on November 22, 2009 for services in Classes 35, 36 and 37 United Kingdom trademark no. UK00908203531 VINCI FACILITIES (fig.), registered on November 2, 2009 for services in Classes 35, 36 and 37 Among the subsidiaries of the VINCI Group are the companies VINCI FACILITIES Partnerships Limited and VINCI FACILITIES Limited (as per Annex 6 to the Complaint), both seated in the United Kingdom (“UK”). In line with this, the Complainant’s group of companies owns domain names composed of the words “VINCI FACILITIES”, in particular <vincifacilities.com> and <vinci-facilities.com> (as per Annex 5 to the Complaint). The disputed domain name was registered on February 26, 2026. Mail servers are connected to the disputed domain name (as per Annex 9 to the Complaint). Before filing the present Complaint, the disputed domain name was used within the email address “[....]@vincifacilities-uk.com” for sending emails to customers and suppliers of the Complainant (as per Annexes 10.1 and 10.2 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that it owns rights in the trademark VINCI FACILITIES. These trademarks predate the disputed domain name by over 15 years. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark identically, with the letters “uk” as an obvious acronym for “United Kingdom” added. This, however, will – according to the Complainant – merely be understood as indicating the geographic origin of the website or the sender of an email. The Complainant claims that, as the sequence VINCI FACILITIES constitutes the longest part and in front position of the disputed domain name, it particularly stands out. Consequently, the customers would infer that a website hosted under the disputed domain name officially belongs to the Complainant and relates to its activities in the UK. On the second element, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is, according to the Complainant, not connected to it in any way, nor an authorized dealer, distributor or licensee of the Complainant. The Complainant’s group of companies is the only one holding rights comprising the words “vinci facilities” in the UK. The Complainant adds that it carried out a search via Google for the words “vinci facilities” and “vinci facilities uk”, and this search yielded only results referencing the Complainant’s activities in the UK (as per Annexes 8.1 and 8.2 to the Complaint). page 3 On the third element, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant puts forth that its company names “VINCI” and “VINCI CONSTRUCTION” as such are well known worldwide through longstanding and consistent use, and that combined with a word connected to the Complainant’s area of business such as “facilities” the public will view the disputed domain name as connected to the Complainant. Accordingly, the Respondent knew or should at least have known about the Complainant’s rights. Given in particular the Complainant’s rights and activities in the UK under the trademarks and designation VINCI FACILITIES, which is identically reproduced within the disputed domain name, it is unlikely that the registration of the disputed domain name was the result of choice. Rather, according to the Complainant, it shows the Respondent’s actual knowledge of the prior rights of the Complainant. On use in bad faith, the Complainant notably points to MX records being configured for the disputed domain name as well as the evidence it put forth on fraudulent emails using the disputed domain name as part of the email address for emails having already been sent, with the Respondent impersonating as a member of the purchasing department of a subsidiary of the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “uk”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term as a clear geographical locator does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 that 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 3.1, section 2.1. page 4 Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed phishing/identity theft, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name incorporating the trademark of the Complainant, which is also in use within the group of companies for subsidiaries of the Complainant in the UK, in its entirety. The disputed domain name was then used to impersonate as a purported member of the purchasing department of a UK operation of the Complainant by using the email address “[....]@vincifacilities-uk.com” to send deceptive emails to customers and suppliers of the Complainant soliciting responses on commercial issues. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed phishing/identity theft, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <vincifacilities-uk.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Jaeger-Lenz/ Andrea Jaeger-Lenz Sole Panelist Date: May 13, 2026

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