The Complainant is a French company, part of Saint-Gobain Distribution Bâtiment France, offering a wide range of sanitary, HVAC and plumbing products for building professionals. The Complainant has in France over 450 agencies, 200 showrooms and offers more than 100.000 products.
Additionally, the subsidiary Saint-Gobain Distribution Bâtiment France is part of the Saint-Gobain group. Saint-Gobain is a worldwide reference in sustainable habitat and construction markets.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on April 6, 2025 allegedly by an individual residing in Paris, France. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page and has been used to send at least one email in the Complainant's name requesting price catalogs and other business information.<\/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": "
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CEDEO mark as it fully incorporates this mark and the addition of the word \"centrales\" is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity of the CEDEO mark with the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Complainant. The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent and did not authorize the Respondent to make use of its CEDEO mark, including as part of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the disputed domain name, which entails that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s employees. Using the disputed domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Lastly, the Complainant affirms that it had extensively used its trademark and enjoyed a strong presence in France in its business field well before the registration of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Respondent was certainly aware of the Complainant's earlier rights and wide use of its CEDEO mark and registered the disputed domain name for this very reason.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name has been used in connection with a phishing scheme where the Respondent attempted to pass off as one of the employees of the Complainant in order to place orders to receive undue advantages. The Complainant states that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith, as it is well-established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use.<\/p>\n
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": "
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 notes that the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing email scheme to impersonate one of the Complainant’s employees to place orders to receive undue advantages. To support this statement, the Complainant provided a copy of the alleged phishing email. However, in reviewing it, the Panel noted that the email addresses of the sender and of the recipient were the same. The email was allegedly signed by an individual whose job title is indicated in the email as \"Responsable Achats\" (Head of Purchasing). The company name D.S.C. Distribution Sanitaire Chauffage appeared below his name. The email also included a link to a website at the address \"www.cedeo.centrales-sa.fr\".<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On May 30, 2025 the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1, requesting the Complainant to clarify why, in the subject email, the email addresses of the sender and of the recipient coincided, and to provide evidence of the fact that the email had indeed been sent to a third party's different address. Moreover, the Panel asked the Complainant to confirm that the name of the individual allegedly signing the email was indeed the name of one of the Complainant's employees, or of an individual having a relationship with the Complainant. The Panel also requested the Complainant to clarify whether the website at \"www.cedeo.centrales-sa.fr\" belonged to the Complainant or to a third party. The Panel set June 4, 2025 as the deadline for the Complainant to respond, and June 9, 2025 as the deadline for the Respondent to reply to the Complainant's submissions. Consequently, also the deadline to render the decision was postponed until June 20, 2025.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On June 4, 2025, the Complainant asked for an extension of the deadline. On June 5, 2025, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 2, thereby extending the Complainant's deadline until June 12, 2025, and the Respondent's deadline to reply until June 19, 2025. The new date to render the decision was therefore postponed to June 25, 2025. The Panel also advised the parties that no further extensions would be granted.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
On June 12, 2025, the Complainant informed the Panel as follows: \"The email of the recipient has been redacted by him who then transferred the email to the Complainant. Mr. [name redacted], who's been impersonated, confirmed that this email is a phishing attempt\". Moreover, there had been no further communications between the sender and the recipient. The Complainant also indicated that the name of the individual appearing at the bottom of the email is the name of the Complainant's managing director. Lastly, regarding the website at \"www.cedeo.centrales-sa.fr\", the Complainant affirmed that \"it does not belong to the Complainant. It was used in a phishing attempt and was suspended at the Complainant's request\".<\/p>\n
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's further contentions. <\/p>\n
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": [ "Angelica Lodigiani" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-21 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n
- CEDEO, French trademark registration No. 4361885 registered on September 8, 2017, for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 37;<\/p>\n
- CEDEO, French trademark registration No. 4750311 registered on March 31, 2021 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <cedeo.fr>, registered on February 21, 2007 and resolving to the Complainant's official website.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "cedeo-centrales.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }