Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105169

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 relies amongst others on European Union trademark <SAINT-GOBAIN> n° 001552843 registered on 18 December 2001 for goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40 and 42.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 22 July 2022.

According to the undisputed evidence, the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page. Additionally, MX servers are configured.

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.

1.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

Many panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. In the case at hand the Complainant’s registered trademark <SAINT-GOBAIN> is fully included in the disputed domain name. The addition of the element "-eu" will be commonly understood as a geographical reference to Europe which cannot exclude confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's registered mark.

2.

In the absence of any Response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating the contrary, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In particular, the Panel notes that there is no evidence in the record that could lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

In addition, it results from the Complainant’s uncontested evidence that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant who has not granted the Respondent any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademark in domain names or in any other manner.

Furthermore, use of the disputed domain name for a registrar parking page with commercial content excludes any noncommercial use in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy from the outset.

Finally, said use for commercial web content does - in the Panel's view - not represent a bona fide offering (pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy). This use rather capitalizes on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s marks.

3.

Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

It is the view of this Panel that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name, which fully includes the Complainant’s trademark identically, in order to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his web site (par. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Considering the fact that the disputed domain name identically includes that trademark suggests the Respondent’s awareness of the trademark.

Additionally, the Panel also considered the following factors as supporting these findings of bad faith registration and use:

(i) the high degree of distinctiveness and the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s mark,

(ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use,

(iii) the Respondent hiding his identity behind a privacy shield,

(iv) the fact that Respondent configured MX-servers and

(v) the implausibility of any good faith uses to which the disputed domain name may be put.