Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108061

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, 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;
• International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°551682 registered on July 21, 1989.

The Complainant also owns many domain names including its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered on December 29, 1995

The Complainant is a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets.

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.

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 is the owner of several trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN, registered worldwide and also owns many domain names including its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.

SAINT-GOBAIN is also commonly used to designate the company name of the Complainant.

The disputed domain name <saint-gobiain.com> was registered on October 15, 2025 and is resolves to a parking page. Besides, MX servers are configured.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <saint-gobiain.com> is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.

The Complainant states that the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (i.e. the addition of the letter “I”) is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix “.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 Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the disputed domain name. 

The Complainant contends that 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.

Moreover, the Complainant also claims that 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 evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. 

The disputed domain name points to a parking page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. 

The disputed domain name was created recently. The Complainant was already extensively using his trademark SAINT-GOBAIN worldwide, especially in the United States, where the trademark is protected 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 Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. 

In view of the above evidence the Complainant is of the view, that 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.

Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. 

Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page. The Complainant contends that 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 in the view of Complainant that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes.

In light of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name <saint-gobiain.com> in bad faith.

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.

CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks. It contains the word element of Complainant's Trademarks (SAINT GOBAIN) with slight spelling variation (SAINT-GOBIAIN). The Panel believes that such slight spelling variation is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s trademarks.

The Panel also asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 

As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy). 

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

BAD FAITH

The Panel believes that this case is a prima facie example of typosquatting (i.e. intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks) which is one of the model situations of bad faith registration / use of a domain name (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). As numerous previous decisions have held, typosquatting as such is evidence of bad faith (WIPO Case No. D2011-1079 bwin.party services (Austria) GmbH v. Interagentur AG; WIPO Case No. D2002-0568, Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani; WIPO Case No. D2002-0423). 

Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page. The Panel finds that 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. The Panel accepts that the evidence of active MX records connected to the disputed domain name, lead to the finding of bad faith use, since - in the present case - 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.

As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).