{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107104",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-11-27 13:33:04",
    "domain_names": [
        "saint-goblan.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Ralph Willkens"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is a French company, present in 76 countries, which specializes in the production, processing and distribution of materials for construction and industrial markets. The Complainant has a complement of 160,000 employees, and reported turnover of EUR 47.9 billion in 2023.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant is the owner of registered trademarks for the mark SAINT-GOBAIN, including those noted in the Identification of Rights section above. The Complainant is also the owner, among others, of the domain name &lt;saint-gobain.com&gt;, registered since December 29, 1995.<\/p>\n<p>According to the corresponding WhoIs record, the disputed domain name was registered on November 6, 2024. The website associated with the disputed domain name consists of a parking page featuring commercial links. The disputed domain name has also been used for e-mail purposes in a phishing scheme between about November 6, 2024 and November 18, 2024 to pass off the Respondent (or another person using the disputed domain name) as one of the Complainant&rsquo;s employees in order to obtain or intercept payments from the Complainant&rsquo;s clients. The Respondent appears to be a private individual with an address in the United States of America.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>Complainant:<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s SAINT-GOBAIN trademark. The addition of the letter &ldquo;l&rdquo; and deletion of the letter &ldquo;i&rdquo; is insufficient to escape such a finding. This is a clear case of typosquatting in that the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of such trademark, and it is well established that slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the trademark concerned. The addition of &ldquo;.com&rdquo; in the disputed domain name may be disregarded for comparison purposes.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as the disputed domain name. Previous panels under the Policy have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the WhoIs information is not similar thereto. The Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant, and the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, nor has it granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to use the Complainant&rsquo;s said trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant&rsquo;s said trademark, which can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name concerned. The disputed domain name also resolves to a parking page with commercial links, and has been used in a phishing scheme to pass off a person as one of the Complainant&rsquo;s employees in order to obtain or intercept payment from the Complainant&rsquo;s clients. This is not a <em>bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services or a noncommercial or fair use in terms of the Policy.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was recently created and the Complainant has extensively used its SAINT-GOBAIN trademark worldwide before then. The Complainant&rsquo;s trademark is well-known, as affirmed by previous panels under the Policy, and it also has a longstanding website under the domain name &lt;saint-gobain.com&gt;. The misspelling of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark in the disputed domain name was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar thereto, and previous panels under the Policy have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. The disputed domain name has also been used in a phishing attempt to try to pass off a person as an employee of the Complainant. The Respondent could not therefore have been unaware of the Complainant at the time when it registered the disputed domain name, and it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark due to the distinctiveness of such mark and its reputation. It is well established in terms of Policy jurisprudence that using a domain name for phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes evidence of bad faith use.<\/p>\n<p>Respondent:<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Andrew Lothian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant owns multiple registered trademarks for the mark SAINT-GOBAIN, including:<\/p>\n<p>International Registered Trademark Number 740184 for the figurative mark SAINT-GOBAIN, registered on July 26, 2000 in Classes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40 and 42, designated in respect of over 15 territories;<\/p>\n<p>International Registered Trademark Number 740183 for the figurative mark SAINT-GOBAIN, registered on July 26, 2000 in Classes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40 and 42, designated in respect of over 70 territories;<\/p>\n<p>International Registered Trademark Number 596735 for the figurative mark SAINT-GOBAIN, registered on November 2, 1992 in Classes 1, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 designated in respect of one territory; and<\/p>\n<p>International Registered Trademark Number 551682 for the figurative mark SAINT-GOBAIN, registered on July 21, 1989 in Classes 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 39, and 41, designated in respect of over 30 territories.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "saint-goblan.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}