{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102002",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-05-21 13:28:07",
    "domain_names": [
        "saint-gobain-fr.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "BENOIT  BAZIN "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials. \r\n\r\nFor 350 years, the Complainant has consistently demonstrated its ability to invent products that improve quality of life. It is now one of the top 100 industrial groups in the world and one of the 100 most innovative companies. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several international trademarks and is also the owner of a large domain names portfolio. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on April 7, 2018.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks since the addition of the geographical term “fr” (for France) is not sufficient to escape the confusion. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark and this may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion. \r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no relationship with Complainant's business and is not authorized or licensed to use the trademark. The Complainant adds that the website under the disputed domain name displays a “404 page” and the disputed the domain name is used by the Respondent for e-mail phishing purpose. \r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business and creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name to commercially benefit from Complainant’s goodwill by using the disputed domain name for phishing purposes. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "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).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).",
    "bad_faith": "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).",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-06-25 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- Saint-Gobain (device), International Trademark Registration No. 740184, registered on July 26, 2000;\r\n- Saint-Gobain (word) International Trademark Registration No. 740183, registered on July 26, 2000;\r\n- Saint-Gobain (device), International Trademark Registration No. 596735, registered on February 11, 1992;\r\n- Saint-Gobain (device), International Trademark Registration No. 551682, registered on July 21, 1989. \r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SAINT-GOBAIN-FR.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}