{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106104", "time_of_filling": "2023-12-27 09:41:24", "domain_names": [ "saintgobain.shop" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "MEI WANG" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, is a large French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials, products and solutions for the construction, industry and mobility markets. It can trace its origins to the 17th century and currently has a presence in 75 countries with 168,000 employees worldwide; it had a turnover of €51.2 billion in 2022.<\/span><\/p>\n

Besides the registered trademarks, the Complainant also adduced evidence to show it is the registrant of the domain name <saint-gobain.com>, registered on 29 December 1995.<\/span><\/p>\n

No information is known about the Respondent who registered the disputed domain name <saintgobain.shop> on 29 December 2023 and redirects to a Dan.com page where it is offered for sale for 1450 USD.<\/span><\/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:<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <saintgobain.shop> and the Complainant's registered trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN are confusingly similar. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Particularly, the Complainant contends that “the domain name includes (the Complainant’s registered trademarks) it in its entirety, without any addition or deletion, except for the hyphen, which is irrelevant”.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name nor appear in the Whois database as the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not been licensed or authorized in other way to use the Complainant’s trademarks nor is in any way related to the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is offered for sale for 1450 USD which considers as a clear evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interest.<\/span><\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states that its registered trademarks are widely known and were that past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.<\/span><\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, according to the complainant, the Respondent certainly had full knowledge of the Complainant rights over the name SAINT-GOBAIN at the time of the disputed domain name’s registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the fact that the disputed domain name has not been actively used is per se an evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to sell it back for out-of-pockets costs, which evinces bad faith registration and use.<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/span><\/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).<\/span><\/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.<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-31 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks:<\/span><\/p>\n