Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107213

The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN.

The disputed domain name is <saint-qobian.ink>.

The Panel finds that the trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN” is fully recognizable in the disputed domain name and that the substitution of the letter "G" with "Q" and the reversal of the letters "A" and "I" have no significant impact in the confusing similarity assessment. In the Panel's view the disputed domain name is a typical case of typosquatting.

According to a consolidated case law in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in it, the confusing similarity threshold is met.

Furthermore, the addition of gTLD is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.

As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.

2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its 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 this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name also in the view of the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the complaint. 

On the basis of the information submitted by the Complainant and not contested, the Panel agrees that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor the Complainant has authorized the Respondent to use and register the disputed domain name. 

The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods / services nor a legitimate / fair use of a domain name since it redirects to a parking page with commercial links. The sponsored links are not justified by a descriptive meaning of the term SAINT QOBIAN or SAINT GOBAIN.  

For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.

3. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. 

The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN;

(ii) the disputed domain name is a clear and obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark (i.e. typo squatting). Previous panels found that typo squatting discloses an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting to find a website related to the Complainant;

(iii) moreover, SAINT-GOBAIN is a well known trademark; thus, it is hard to see how the Respondent could use the disputed domain name in a way that it would not infringe the Complainant’s trademark rights.

Furthermore, the Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith since:

(i) it directs to a parking page with sponsored links and these links are not justified by a dictionary meaning of the words SAINT GOBAIN or SAINT QOBIAN;

(ii) the disputed domain name was used in a phishing scheme which is a clear index of use in bad faith.

All above considered the Panel finds the evidence submitted as sufficient to prove use and registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.