{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107573", "time_of_filling": "2025-05-14 11:06:12", "domain_names": [ "saint-gobai.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Elvis John (ykaochuang)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Assertions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant is a prominent French enterprise in the building materials industry and a worldwide leader in sustainability, with a turnover of approximately EUR 46.6 billion in 2024.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark referenced above and others within its portfolio, the Complainant possesses numerous domain names incorporating the term 'saint-gobain', most notably <saint-gobain.com>, which was registered in 1995.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent<\/strong>'<\/span>s Factual Assertions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Consequently, the Complainant's factual assertions remain uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

 The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings concerning the domain name <saint-gobai.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

A.1 <\/span><\/strong>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name bears a striking resemblance to its distinguished trade mark SAINT-GOBAIN. The mere omission of a single letter does not dilute this similarity. This case exemplifies classic 'typosquatting', with an apparent misspelling intended to exploit typographical errors made by unsuspecting Internet users. The addition of the Top Level Domain ('TLD') <.com> does not alter the perception of affiliation with the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

A.2<\/strong> <\/span>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests concerning the disputed domain name. The absence of any identifiable relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, along with a lack of authorisation to use the trade mark SAINT-GOBAIN, underpins this assertion. Furthermore, the Respondent's configuration of the website as a commercial parking page undermines any claims of bona fide use.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.<\/span>3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The registration of the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith, given the Complainant's extensive and longstanding use of the trade mark SAINT-GOBAIN prior to the disputed domain name's acquisition. The intentional misspelling indicates acute awareness of the Complainant's trade mark rights. Moreover, the Respondent's actions of redirecting traffic for their own commercial benefit constitute evidence of bad faith use. The configuration of the disputed domain name with MX records implies potential e-mail use, indicating an active purpose rather than a genuine intent for legitimate use.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>’<\/span>s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant’s submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP 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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant, Saint-Gobain, relies upon the following registered trade marks, among others:<\/p>\n

•  <\/span><\/strong>International trade mark registration no. 551682, registered on 21 July 1989, for the figurative mark SAINT-GOBAIN, in classes 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 39, and 41 of the Nice Classification of the Nice Classification; and<\/p>\n

•  <\/span>International trade mark registration no. 740183, registered on 26 July 2000, for the figurative mark SAINT-GOBAIN, in classes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40, and 42 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(Hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant's trade mark’).<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 9 May 2025 and currently does not resolve to an active website. However, the Complainant has provided evidence of a webpage featuring pay-per-click (PPC) commercial links (herein referred to as 'the Respondent’s website').<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "saint-gobai.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }