| Case number | CAC-UDRP-108650 |
|---|---|
| Time of filing | 2026-05-14 10:00:30 |
| Domain names | saintgobainus.com |
Case administrator
| Name | Olga Dvořáková (Case admin) |
|---|
Complainant
| Organization | COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN |
|---|
Complainant representative
| Organization | NAMESHIELD S.A.S. |
|---|
Respondent
| Name | he jxing |
|---|
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:
- European trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°001552843 registered since March 9, 2000;
- 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.
SAINT-GOBAIN is also commonly used to designate the company name of the Complainant.
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.
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 47.9 billion euros in turnover in 2023 and 160,000 employees.
The disputed domain name <saintgobainus.com> was registered on May 8, 2026 and resolves to a website where the Respondent offers plastic and elastomer solutions under the denomination SAINT-GOBAIN.
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, among other things, contends the following in support of the complaint.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN and its associated domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent.
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. Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to a website offering plastic and elastomer solutions under the denomination SAINT-GOBAIN. By using the disputed domain name, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
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)
This is a case of adding a generic term "US", which is the country code for United States, after the Complainant's trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, and omitting the hyphen between "SAINT" and "GOBAIN" in the Complainant's trademark, it is found that the disputed domain name <saintgobainus.com> 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).
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)
Given the circumstances of the case, among others well-known character of Complainant's trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s marks and domain names.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The disputed domain name currently resolves to an active website that offers competing goods to those provided by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 three essential issues under the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are whether:
i. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and
iii. the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
2. The Panel reviewed carefully all documents provided by the Complainant. The Respondent did not provide the Panel with any documents or statements. The Panel also visited all available websites and public information concerning the disputed domain name, namely the WHOIS databases.
3. The UDRP Rules clearly say in their Article 3 that any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.
4. The Panel therefore came to the following conclusions:
a) The Complainant states and proves that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark and its domain names. Indeed, the disputed domain name is merely adding the country code for Unitec States after Complainant's trademark, and omitting the hyphen in the Complainant's trademark.
The disputed domain name is therefore deemed confusingly similar.
b) The Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name or mark, nor is there any authorization for the Respondent by the Complainant to use or register the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest with respect to the disputed domain name.
c) It is clear that the Complainant's trademarks and website(s) were used by the Complainant long time before the disputed domain name was registered.
The Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's trademark and domain names at the time of registering the disputed domain name and therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
The disputed domain name resolves to website resolves to a website where the Respondent offers plastic and elastomer solutions under the denomination SAINT-GOBAIN. It is concluded that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a well-known or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity is sufficient to create a presumption of bad faith. It is further concluded that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with the intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website to which the disputed domain name resolves.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
For the reasons stated above, it is the decision of this Panel that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
- saintgobainus.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
| Name | Lars Karnoe |
|---|