The Complainant is a French company specializing in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. It is now one of the top 100 industrial groups in the world and one of the 100 most innovative companies with 350 years of tradition.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of several domain names including trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com>, registered and used since December 29, 1995.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <saint-gobains.net> (hereinafter “disputed domain name”) was registered on September 26, 2022 and resolves to an inactive page. Moreover, MX servers are configured. These facts were proven by pertinent documents.<\/p>\n
According to the Registrar verification, the Respondent is Fernando Chavira. The Respondent’s provided address as being at Texas, United States.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Its well-known and distinctive trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. The addition of the letter “s” to the Complainant’s trademark is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods SAINT-GOBAIN.<\/p>\n
According to the Complainant, it is a clear case of typosquatting (when the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark).<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.net” 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 between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, It´s trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that past Panels have held the Complainant rights over the term “SAINT-GOBAIN”.<\/p>\n
The 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 (See Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group).<\/p>\n
The 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 to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Besides, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is typosquatting version of It´s 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 the domain name (See Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group).<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the 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 (See WIPO Case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi).<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that at the time of the disputed domain name registration, it was already extensively using its trademarks worldwide having a well-known character and reputation. The Complainant adds that all the results for a Google search of the terms “SAINT-GOBAINS” refer to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s prior rights and worldwide use of Its trademarks being the only reason why the Respondent registered the litigious domain name.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. According to the Complainant, it is evidence of an act of bad faith (See Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines).<\/p>\n
In addition to that, the domain name resolves to an inactive page. 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. According to the Complainant, this may constitute evidence of a bad faith act too (See WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant contends that MX servers are configured which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes (See CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
No administratively Complaint Response has been filed.<\/p>", "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 UDRP).<\/p>", "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 UDRP).<\/p>", "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 UDRP).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Radim Charvát" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-02-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the following registered trademarks:<\/p>\n
The Complainant proved its ownership of listed trademark registrations by the submitted extracts from the Register.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "saint-gobains.net": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }