{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107109", "time_of_filling": "2024-11-29 10:11:41", "domain_names": [ "sairnt-gobain.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "cai bren (Reserve Studies)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:

(a) The Complainant is a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. For 350 years, the Complainant has consistently demonstrated its ability to invent products that improve quality of life. It 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.

(b) Moreover, the Complainant also owns many domain names including its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered on 29 December 1995.

(c) There is no website operated under the disputed domain name, it only resolves to a parking page with commercial links.<\/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:

In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:

(a) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks. The addition of the letter “R” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods SAINT-GOBAIN. It is well-established that the slight spelling variations do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks.<\/p>\n

(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s Trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.  Besides, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. Typosquatting<\/em> is the practice of registering a domain name to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and which shows that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.<\/p>\n

(c) Furthermore, the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally created by the Respondent to establish confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to Complainant’s Trademarks. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website which is an evidence of bad faith. Consequently, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:

The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (\"UDRP<\/strong>\" or \"Policy<\/strong>\").

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/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>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/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>\n

For details, please see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".<\/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": [ "Michal Matějka" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-12-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

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