Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108330

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 has proved to own the following trademark rights, inter alia:

• International trademark SAINT GOBAIN n°740183 registered on July 26, 2000, and duly renewed;
• International trademark SAINT GOBAIN n°596735 registered on November 2, 1992, and duly renewed;
• International trademark SAINT GOBAIN n°551682 registered on July 21, 1989, duly renewed.

 The Complainants also owns the following domain name:

• <saint-gobain.com> registered on December 29, 1995

The Complainant, Saint-Gobain 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. The Complainant is one of the top industrial groups in the world and is the owner of several SAINT-GOBAIN trademarks, registered worldwide.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <salnt-gobalns.com> on January 4, 2026. MX servers were configured.

The Complainant submitted the following documents to prove the abovementioned facts:

• Annex-1: Information regarding the Complainant
• Annex-2: Complainant’s trademarks
• Annex-3: Complainant’s domain name
• Annex-4: Whois of the disputed domain name
• Annex-5: Website in relation with the domain name
• Annex-6: DNS configuration

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.

Identity (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <salnt-gobalns.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Saint-Gobain trademarks.

Indeed, the misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, namely the substitution of the letter “I” with the letter “L” and the addition of the letter “S”, is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.

Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.

Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interests (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy)

The Complainant argued that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant.  

The Complainant asserted that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. 

Moreover, the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Complainant asserted that the Respondent has never been granted a license, or any other way been authorized, in order to register the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent never sought the consent of the Complainant in order to register the aforementioned domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in using the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Therefore, the Panel finds that the purpose of offering sponsored links does not qualify as a bona fide use. The Respondent did not intend to use the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate purpose.

Finally, the Respondent had the opportunity to provide its arguments in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, by failing to file a response, the Respondent has missed this opportunity and the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences from the Respondent's failure as it considers appropriate in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Rules.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

In light of the records, the Complainant showed that the disputed domain name is consequently similar to the well-known SAINT-GOBAIN trademark. The Panel finds that the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name. Arguably, the Respondent registered said domain name knowing that the trademark benefited from a worldwide reputation. Moreover, the time of the registration, namely January 2026, is well posterior to the registration of SAINT-GOBAIN trademarks.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. Therefore, it is clear to the Panel that the Respondent was well aware of the SAINT-GOBAIN trademarks and has registered the dispute domain name with the intention to refer to the Complainant and to its trademarks.

Furthermore, it seems that the Respondent has registered the dispute domain name in bad faith for the sole purpose of attracting Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks. In fact, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

To the Panel’s opinion, this shows that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.