| Case number | CAC-UDRP-107103 |
|---|---|
| Time of filing | 2024-11-27 13:16:30 |
| Domain names | saints-gobian.com |
Case administrator
| Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
|---|
Complainant
| Organization | COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN |
|---|
Complainant representative
| Organization | NAMESHIELD S.A.S. |
|---|
Respondent
| Organization | Richard Bartlett (Richard Bartlett) |
|---|
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 several international trademark registrations for the wording “SAINT-GOBAIN”, including:
- International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°740184 registered on July 26, 2000;
- International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°740183 registered on July 26, 2000;
- International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°596735 registered on November 2, 1992;
- International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°551682 registered on July 21, 1989.
The Complainant also owns the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered on December 29, 1995.
The Complainant states that it is a French company and a top industrial group in the world, with around 47.9 billion euros in turnover in 2023 and 160,000 employees producing, processing and distributing materials for the construction and industrial markets.
The Complainant further states that it is the owner of the trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN” since the end of the 80's and of various domain names, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2024 and it resolves to an inactive webpage.
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
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 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 disputed domain name <saints-gobian.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN”, as the addition of the letter “S” to the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN and the reversal of the letters “A” and “I” are not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods SAINT-GOBAIN; on the contrary, such variation suggests this is a typical typosquatting case (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, 1.9).
According to the WIPO case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
In the case at hand, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use the trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN”. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The disputed domain name is parked: therefore, the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN”. See for instance WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc.
Furthermore, as the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage, it is actually not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
In the absence of real evidence in the merits of the case from the Respondent and given the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks, the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks “SAINT-GOBAIN” in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel believes that the same was registered and is being used in bad faith.
- saints-gobian.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
| Name | Tommaso La Scala |
|---|