{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106838", "time_of_filling": "2024-09-03 09:50:54", "domain_names": [ "regalsaintgobain.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Domain Privacy (Domain Name Privacy Inc.)" ], "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 76 countries with 160,000 employees worldwide; it had a turnover of €47.9 billion in 2023.<\/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> <\/span><\/p>\n

Apart from the country of origin (<\/span>Cyprus<\/span>), no specific information is known about the Respondent who registered the disputed domain name <<\/span>regalsaintgobain.com<\/span>> on 25 August 2024, <\/span>resolves to a page with commercial links<\/span> and is offered for sale for <\/span>3 137 EUR<\/span>. <\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

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

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

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

Particularly, the Complainant contends that “the addition of the generic term “REGAL” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain name associated”. <\/em>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.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

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

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <\/span>resolves to a parking page with commercial links<\/span> which considers as a clear case of <\/span>not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. <\/span><\/p>\n

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

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant states that its registered trademarks are widely known and 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> <\/span><\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant contends that the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links shows the Respondent’s intention to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which considers as an evidence of bad faith 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 demonstrates per se the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use.<\/span> <\/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 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": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-10-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

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