The Complainant (POINT P S.A.S), belonging to the SAINT-GOBAIN group, is a company specializing in the distribution of construction materials and the manufacture of prefabricated and ready-mixed concrete, to a clientele composed mainly of professionals of the building.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <pointpsas.com> was registered on 15 October 2022 and is held by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is currently not used and has no genuine content available to as it merely reads “Coming soon. A new website is in the works<\/em>”.<\/p>\n The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain has been used in an e-mail address for apparent phishing purposes as the sender (likely the Respondent) impersonated an employee of the Complainant and addressed third parties on behalf of that employee with unsolicited emails and offers.<\/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 CONFUSING SIMILARITY<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n - The disputed domain name contains “POINT P” word elements, and it is thus almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to Complainant’s trademarks;<\/p>\n - The addition of the term “SAS” (abbreviation for French “société par actions simplifiée<\/em>” which is Complainant’s corporate form) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks as it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, Complainant's trademarks and its business;<\/p>\n - The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard;<\/p>\n Thus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n - The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - Furthermore, the disputed domain name website has been during its existence inactive (it resolves to a registrar parking page) and it has been used in a phishing scheme, which implies that there was no Respondent’s intention to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes;<\/p>\n - The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n - Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof.<\/p>\n - The disputed domain name (at the time of filing of the complaint) did not resolve to any active website. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of selling thereof to the Complainant.<\/p>\n - Moreover, the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing e-mail.<\/p>\n - It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described non-use of the disputed domain name (inactive holding) are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent has not provided any response to the Complaint.<\/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": [
"Jiří Čermák"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-04-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing a word element \"POINT P”:<\/p>\n besides other national and international (WIPO) trademarks consisting of the \"POINT P\" denominations (collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").<\/p>\n The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “POINT P”.<\/p>\n Moreover, Complainant’s company name reads POINT P S.A.S. (whereas S.A.S. stands for “société par actions simplifiée<\/em>”) which also establishes Complainant’s rights in the “POINT P” name.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"pointpsas.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n