FACTS PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. The Complainant is a worldwide reference in sustainable habitat and construction markets. For 350 years, the Complainant has consistently demonstrated its ability to invent products that improve the quality of life. It is now one of the top industrial groups in the world with around 46.6 billion euros in turnover in 2024 and 161,000 employees <\/p>\n
The Complainant operates its main webpage at “https:\/\/www.saint-gobain.com”, which was registered on December 29, 1995.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <sqint-gobain.com> (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on March 28, 2025 and it resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Disputed Domain Name has configurated MX records.<\/p>\n
According to the Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n
For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n
The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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:<\/p>\n
First element: Similarity<\/p>\n
The Complainant confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <sqint-gobain.com> is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the substitution of the letter “A” by the letter “Q” in the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods SAINT-GOBAIN.<\/p>\n
In Compliance’s opinion, this is a clear case of typosquatting, i.e. the Disputed Domain Name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. It is well-established that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
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. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n
Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the Disputed Domain Name. In accordance with the Complainant, Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a Disputed Domain Dame if the Whois information was not similar to the Disputed Domain Name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Neither 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.<\/p>\n
Besides, the Complainant also claims that the Disputed Domain Name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. Typosquatting 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 Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. In accordance with the Complainant’s allegation, past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n
Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n
The Complainant indicates that it has been using its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN worldwide well before the Disputed Domain Name’s registration date, especially in the United States. The Complainant also recalled that the Complainant trademark has a well-known character worldwide and has a long-standing worldwide operating website under the <saint-gobain.com> domain name.<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT- GOBAIN.<\/p>\n
In view of the above evidence, the Complainant confirmed that the Respondent obviously knew the prior rights and wide use of SAINT- GOBAIN by the Complainant being this the <\/span>sole and only reason why the Complainant registered the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and this is an additional evidence of bad faith – in accordance with previous UDRP panels.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith. Finally, the Disputed Domain Name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the Disputed Domain Name could not be used for any good faith purpose<\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/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": [
"Victor Garcia Padilla"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-05-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN, including but not limited to:<\/p>\n The Complainant also owns many domain names including its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered on December 29, 1995.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"sqint-gobain.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n