The Complainant is a French company specialising in the production, processing, and distribution of materials for the construction sector and industrial markets.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the Trademarks mentioned above and has also provided evidence that it registered the domain name <saint-gobain.com> on 29 December 1995.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on 18 December 2024 and currently resolves to a parking page.<\/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:<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks. According to the Complainant, the substitution of the letter “G” by the letter “Q” and the addition of the letter “L” are not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being connected to Complainant’s Trademarks. The Complainant claims that this is a clear case of “typosquatting”.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the “Whois” as the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for and has no business with the Respondent. The Complainant did not authorise the Respondent to make use of the Complainant’s Trademarks or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is a “typosquatted” version of the Complainant’s Trademark(s). Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page and that Respondent did not use the disputed domain name and has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS: 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 Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
As regards paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel needs not consider this issue, given its conclusion below on the “bad faith” issue (Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has not, 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": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Bart Van Besien" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-02-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the owner of the following international trademarks “SAINT-GOBIN” (hereinafter together referred to as the “Trademarks”, and each separately as a “Trademark”):<\/p>\n