{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104504", "time_of_filling": "2022-04-19 09:34:17", "domain_names": [ "saintgobainpartners.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "NetCarrots.com Pvt. Ltd." ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT-GOBAIN®. See WIPO Case No. D2020-3549 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v. On behalf of saint-gobain-recherche.net owner, Whois Privacy Service \/ Grigore PODAC (“The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is a well-established company which operates since decades worldwide under the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.”).\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. 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 disputed 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.\r\nAs prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. (for instance: WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).", "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": "1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark SAINT-GOBAIN®. The addition of the generic term “Partners” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN®. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and domain names associated. It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”. The Complainant refers to the earlier WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\nFurthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.COM” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the 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 trademark SAINT-GOBAIN®. The Complainant refers to the earlier decision on Forum Case No. FA 153545, Gardline Surveys Ltd v. Domain Finance Ltd. (\"The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.\").\r\nThus, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN®.\r\n\r\n2. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\nThe Complainant asserts that 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. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Complainant refers to the earlier decision on Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”).\r\nThe 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.\r\nNeither 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.\r\nThe disputed domain name is not actively used. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark.\r\nTherefore, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\nThe Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT-GOBAIN®. See WIPO Case No. D2020-3549 Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v. On behalf of saint-gobain-recherche.net owner, Whois Privacy Service \/ Grigore PODAC (“The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is a well-established company which operates since decades worldwide under the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.”). Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\nFurthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. 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.\r\nThe Complainant refers to the prior WIPO UDRP panel decisions on the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, which may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. For instance, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:\r\n- International trademark n°740184 registered on 26.07.2000;\r\n- International trademark n°740183 registered on 26.07.2000;\r\n- International trademark n°596735 registered on 02.11.1992;\r\n- International trademark n°551682 registered on 21.07.1989.\r\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name , bearing the sign “SAINT-GOBAIN®”.", "decision_domains": { "SAINTGOBAINPARTNERS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }