{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106449", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-16 16:03:44", "domain_names": [ "saintgobainpakistan.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "tech sili (Techsili)" ], "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.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 4 April 2024 and resolves to an index page. MX servers are configured in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name, and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/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": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions:<\/p>\n

A. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN” and its domain names associated. The Complainant asserts that the addition of the term “pakistan” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar.<\/p>\n

B. The Complainant suggests it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent: (i) is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name; (ii) is not related in any way with the Complainant; (iii) has no business with the Complainant; and (iv) has not been granted any license or authorization to the Complainant's trademark. Besides, the disputed domain name resolves to an index page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use it, which further demonstrates the Respondent’s lack of legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

C. The Complainant believes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because it was created recently. In contrast, the Complainant had already extensively used its trademark “SAINT-GOBAIN” worldwide well before that date. The Complainant submits that its trademark has a well-known character worldwide and that it has a long-standing worldwide operating website under the <saint-gobain.com> domain name. 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. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an error page with MX records being set up, and the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name. It is impossible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate or unlawful.<\/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": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-28 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n