{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104500",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-04-19 09:37:45",
    "domain_names": [
        "saint-goibain.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "jackson williams"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials, organized into three sectors, namely Innovative Materials, Construction Products and Building Distribution. The Complainant claims a 350-year history, noting that 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 is the owner of the SAINT-GOBAIN registered trademark. The Complainant is also the owner of multiple domain names bearing this mark, including for example, <saint gobain.com> registered since December 29, 1995.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 21, 2022. It is inactive in terms of website content but was used to send an e-mail dated April 5, 2022 allegedly seeking quotations for commercial products.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known and distinctive SAINT-GOBAIN trademark and contains an obvious misspelling thereof. This is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark. The addition of the gTLD “.com” is insufficient to escape a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and it does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s said trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the disputed domain name. 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. The Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant, and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. No licence or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s SAINT-GOBAIN trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s SAINT-GOBAIN trademark. 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 a domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark which has operated for decades worldwide. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The misspelling of the Complainant’s SAINT-GOBAIN trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar therewith, and previous panels under the Policy have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe website related to the disputed domain name is currently inactive but the disputed domain name was used for fraudulent phishing scheme. The evidence of such a phishing scheme further supports the claim that the Respondent is not making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use thereof.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that 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 that 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": [
        "Andrew Lothian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of a variety of registered trademarks in respect of the mark SAINT-GOBAIN including for example:\r\n\r\nInternational Registered Trademark no. 740183 for the word mark SAINT-GOBAIN, granted on July 26, 2000 in Classes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40, and 42, and designated in respect of over 40 territories.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SAINT-GOIBAIN.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}