Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107451

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 trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN, registered worldwide especially the United States, such as:

• 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;
• US trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°73825251 registered since June 25, 1991;
• International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°551682 registered on July 21, 1989.

Saint-Gobain is a worldwide reference in sustainable habitat and construction markets. It takes a long-term view in order to develop products and services for its customers that facilitate sustainable construction. In this way, it designs innovative, high-performance solutions that improve habitat and everyday life.

For 350 years, the Complainant has consistently demonstrated its ability to invent products that improve quality of life. It is now one of the top industrial groups in the world with around 46.6 billion euros in turnover in 2024 and 161,000 employees.

The Complainant operates in North America, especially in the United States, via its 145 locations. SAINT-GOBAIN is also commonly used to designate the company name of the Complainant.

The disputed domain name <seint-gobein.com> was registered on March 18, 2025 and is inactive. MX servers are configured.

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). 

Indeed, the substitution of the letter “A” by the letter “E” twice in the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods SAINT-GOBAIN.

This is a clear case of typosquatting, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. It is well-established that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”)).

Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, 1.1 (“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”)).

Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.

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).

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.

The Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the disputed domain name, but as “Susan Webbing”. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name ( Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston / Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”)).

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.

The disputed domain name is inactive. The Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. ( Forum Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket / JM Consultants (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s lack of content at the disputed domain shows the lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).”)).

Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

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 disputed domain name was created recently. The Complainant was already extensively using his trademark SAINT-GOBAIN worldwide well before that date. It is also recalled that the Complainant trademark has a well-known character worldwide and has a long-standing worldwide operating website under the <saint-gobain.com> domain name.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (WIPO Case No. D2020-3549, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v. On behalf of saint-gobain-recherche.net owner, Whois Privacy Service / Grigore PODAC (“The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is a well-established company which operates since decades worldwide under the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.”)).

In view of the above evidence, the Respondent obviously knew the prior rights and wide use of SAINT-GOBAIN by the Complainant. That is the sole and only reason why he registered the litigious domain name.

Furthermore, the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith (Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines ("In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the <microssoft.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")).

The disputed domain name is inactive. The Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is 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.

As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.

Please see for instance:

• WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;
• WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.

The disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose (CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”)).

In light of the above, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <seint-gobein.com> in bad faith.

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 disputed domain name is inactive. The Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is 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. Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.