The Complainant is a recognized French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. The Complainant is a worldwide reference in sustainable habitat and construction markets. The Complainant under a long-term view, develops products and services to facilitate sustainable construction, designs innovative, high-performance solutions, which improves habitat and everyday life for its customers.<\/p>\n
According with its Integrated Annual Report of 2022-2023, the Complainant has industrial presence in 75 countries, over 450 filed patents, 51.2 billion euros in turnover in 2022, 168,000 employees across the world; ranked among the 16 companies certified worldwide by the Top Employers Institute and it is committed to achieving Carbon Neutrality by 2050.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns its domain names portfolio comprising its Trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered since December 29, 1995.<\/p>\n
SAINT-GOBAIN is also commonly used to designate the Complainant’s company name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <saint-gboain.com<\/strong>> was registered on September 27, 2023<\/strong> and by the time of this Decision, resolves to an inactive website.<\/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 Contentions<\/strong>:<\/p>\n The Complainant’s primary contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith due to: the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN is widely known, confirmed in Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v. On behalf of saint-gobain-recherche.net owner, Whois Privacy Service \/ Grigore PODAC, WIPO Case No. D2020-3549; that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's Trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark; that the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark, constituting an evidence of bad faith, citing Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines, Forum Case No. FA 877979; that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website, showing with it, that any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate it is possible such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law; that the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use, citing Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen, WIPO Case No. D2000-0400. Finally, the Complainant contents that MX servers are configured, suggesting with it that the disputed domain name may be actively used for e-mail purposes, citing JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono, CAC Case No. 102827.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Response<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent did not reply to any of the Complainant's contentions.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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).<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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": [
"María Alejandra López García"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-08 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is a recognized French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets.<\/p>\n The Complainant owns the following Trademarks:<\/p>\n - International Trademark SAINT-GOBAIN AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 740184 registered on July 26, 2000 and in force until July 26, 2030;<\/p>\n - International Trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, Reg. No. 740183 registered on July 26, 2000 and in force until July 26, 2030;<\/p>\n - International Trademark SAINT-GOBAIN AND DESIGN, Reg. 596735 registered on November 2, 1992 and in force until November 2, 2032;<\/p>\n - International Trademark SAINT-GOBAIN AND DESIGN, Reg. 551682 registered on July 21, 1989 and in force until July 21, 2029.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"saint-gboain.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n