{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106282", "time_of_filling": "2024-02-21 13:37:36", "domain_names": [ "proveedoressaint-gobain.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Above.com Domain Privacy" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French company specializing in the production, processing, and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. “SAINT-GOBAIN” is a worldwide reference in sustainable habitat and construction markets. It takes a long-term view to develop products and services for its customers that facilitate sustainable construction. In this way, it designs innovative, high-performance solutions that improve habitat and everyday life (referred to the copy of the Complainant’s webpage).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also owns an important domain name portfolio comprising its trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN”, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered since December 29, 1995 (proved by WHOIS information for <saint-gobain.com>).<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <proveedoressaint-gobain.com> (hereinafter “disputed domain name”) was registered on February 12, 2024 (WHOIS information for the disputed domain name) and resolves to a parking page with commercial links (the copy of the webpage linked to the disputed domain name). Besides, MX servers are configured (the copy of the DNS query webpage).<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Registrar, the Respondent´s name is protected by Domain Privacy. The Respondent’s provided address as being at Melbourne, Australia.<\/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

A. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. <\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN” and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term “PROVEEDORES” (“SUPPLIERS” in Spanish), is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark, and the domain name associated.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademark.<\/p>\n

B. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. <\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database 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.<\/p>\n

On the contrary, the Respondent's identity is protected by Domain Privacy. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed 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.<\/p>\n

Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links (demonstrated by the copy of the webpage linked to the disputed domain name). Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the <proveedoressaint-gobain.com> disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

C. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name was created recently (referred to WHOIS information for the disputed domain name). The Complainant was already extensively using its “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademark worldwide well before that date. It is also recalled that the Complainant’s trademark has a well-known character worldwide and has a long-standing worldwide operating website under the <saint-gobain.com> domain name. The Complainant’s “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademark is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant assumes 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.<\/p>\n

The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links (the copy of the webpage linked to the disputed domain name). The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n

Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records (the copy of the DNS query webpage) which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n

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

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

No administrative Complaint Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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": "2024-03-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n