Complainant states that it is “a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets”; and that “[i]t is now one of the top industrial groups in the world with around 47.9 billion euros in turnover in 2023 and 160,000 employees.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on November 5, 2024, and is not being used in connection with an active website. MX records have been created for the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that it has rights in the SAINT-GOBAIN Trademark based on the registrations cited above; and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAINT-GOBAIN because “[t]his is a clear case of typosquatting, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark” and “[i]t is well-established that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusing[ly] similar to the Complainant’s trademark.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, “Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the disputed domain name”; Respondent “is not related in any way with the Complainant” and “Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent”; “[n]either licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant”; “[t]yposquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name”; and because “the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page… [t] he Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name” and “[i]t proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark.”<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia, given Complainant’s longstanding rights in the Disputed Domain Name as well as Complainant’s own registration of the domain name <saint-gobain.com> (created December 29, 1995), “the Respondent obviously knew the prior rights and wide use of SAINT-GOBAIN by the Complainant” and “[t]hat is the sole and only reason why he registered the litigious domain name”; “the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark”; although “the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page… Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law”; and the creation of MX records “suggests that [the Disputed Domain Name] may be actively used for email purposes.”<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/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": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-17 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant states, and provides documentation in support thereof, that it “is the owner of several trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN, registered worldwide,” including Int’l Reg. No. 551682 for SAINT-GOBAIN (registered July 21, 1989); Int’l Reg. No. 596735 for SAINT-GOBAIN (registered November 2, 1992); and Int’l Reg. No. 740183 for SAINT-GOBAIN (registered July 26, 2000). These registrations are referred to herein as the “SAINT-GOBAIN Trademark.”<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "seint-gobain.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }