{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105839", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-03 10:28:43", "domain_names": [ "ext-saint-gobian.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Gwen Jekovic" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. The Complainant has provided evidence of rights on the term SAINT-GOBAIN.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the domain names <saint-gobain.com>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <ext-saint-gobian.com> was registered on 26 September, 2023 and resolves to an index page. MX records are configured on the disputed domain name.<\/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<\/strong><\/p>\n

A.THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <ext-saint-gobian.com<\/strong>> is confusingly similar to its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.

The Complainant submits that the domain name includes it in its entirety. The addition of the term “EXT” and the reversal of the letters “A” and “I” are not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods SAINT-GOBAIN

Furthermore, 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 between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.

B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known by 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 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.

Neither license 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.

Finally, the disputed domain name points to an index page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.

The Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation and the fact exposed above, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.

Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an index 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.<\/p>\n

Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes, per the Complainant.<\/p>\n

Thus, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT 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 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": [ "Arthur Fouré" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of rights on the term SAINT-GOBAIN :<\/p>\n