The Complainant is the owner of the portfolio of trademark registrations described above and uses the SAINT-GOBAIN mark extensively in its business producing, processing and distributing materials for the construction and industrial markets.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its business website at www.saint-gobain.com.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2025. It resolves to a website that has no connection with the Complainant and MX servers have been configured to allow the creation of email accounts.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There is no information available about the Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint and the response of the Registrar to the request by the Center for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.<\/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<\/b><\/p>\n
The Complainant claims rights in the SAINT-GOBAIN mark based on its ownership of the trademark and service mark registrations set out above and extensive use of the mark in its business producing processing and distributing materials for the construction and industrial markets.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that since it was founded 350 years ago, the Complainant has grown to become one of the top industrial groups in the world with around 46.6 billion euros in turnover in 2024, established in 80 countries, with 161,000 employees.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains a website at www.saint-gobain.com also owns many domain names including its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered on December 29, 1995.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that SAINT-GOBAIN is also commonly used to designate the company name of the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <saiht-gobain.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the SAINT-GOBAIN mark in which the Complainant has rights.<\/p>\n
It is submitted that the substitution of the letter “n” by the letter “h” in the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.<\/p>\n
It is argued that this is a clear case of typosquatting, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and Complainant submits that 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
In this regard Complainant refers to the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0<\/u>, at 1.9 (“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”).<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension <.com> does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. The WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0<\/u>, at 1.1 (“The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”).<\/p>\n
The Complainant secondly alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that according to the decision in Croatia Airlines d .d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.<\/em>, WIPO Case D2003-0455, a Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the published Whois as the disputed domain name, and panels established under the Policy have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name 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 In this regard the Complainant refers as an example to the decision in Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group<\/em> Forum Claim FA 1781783, (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not related in any way with the Complainant, nor does the Complainant carry out any activity for, or have any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Complainant asserts that neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant to apply for registration of the disputed domain name or to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.<\/p>\n The Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, adding that 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 a domain name at issue.<\/p>\n In this regard the Complainant refers to the decision in The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group <\/em>Forum Claim FA1597465, (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”).<\/p>\n The Complainant refers to a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint and submits that it illustrates that the disputed domain name points to the website of a named communication agency.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that such use fails to confer rights and legitimate interests, as it is used to promote unrelated services. In this regard the Complainant refers to the decision of the panel in Baylor University v. Pan Pan Chen \/ Chen Pan Pan Forum Claim FA1808541, (“Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services completely unrelated to those offered by Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain to promote unrelated services can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).<\/p>\n Thirdly the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT- GOBAIN was created recently on July 7, 2025; that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark SAINT- GOBAIN; and the Complainant was already extensively using his trademark SAINT-GOBAIN worldwide well before that date.<\/p>\n It is further argued that the Complainant’s SAINT-GOBAIN trademark is well-known with a long-standing goodwill and reputation worldwide operating its website at <www.saint-gobain.com>, citing the decision of the panel in Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v. On behalf of saint- gobain-recherche.net owner, Whois Privacy Service \/ Grigore PODAC <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2020-3549, (“The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is a well-established company which operates since decades worldwide under the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN.”).<\/p>\n In view of the above evidence, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was obviously aware of the Complainant’s prior rights and wide use of SAINT- GOBAIN; and the similarity with the Complainant’s mark was the only reason for the Respondent to register the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n Furthermore, it is alleged that the misspelling of the SAINT-GOBAIN mark in the disputed domain name was intentionally designed to create a confusingly similar trademark. The Complainant refers to the decisions of previous panels established under the Policy which held that typosquatting constitutes bad faith under the Policy, including Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines<\/em> Forum Claim FA 877979, (\"In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the <microssoft.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).\")<\/p>\n Moreover, because the disputed domain name redirects to the website of a named communication agency, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Complainant. Respondent is obtaining commercial gain from its use of the disputed domain name and the resolving website.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. The Complainant argues that such use 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. Please see for instance JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono<\/em> CAC Case No. 102827, (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”).<\/p>\n <\/b><\/p>\n Respondent<\/b><\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/p>\n <\/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": [
"James Bridgeman"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-08-13 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN, including<\/p>\n International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (figurative), registration n°551682 registered on July 21, 1989 for goods and services in Nice classification 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 39, and 41;<\/p>\n International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (figurative), registration n°596735 registered on November 2, 1992 for goods and services in Nice classification for goods in Nice classification 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24;<\/p>\n International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (figurative), registration n°740183 registered on July 26, 2000 for goods and services in Nice classification 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40, and 42;<\/p>\n International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (figurative), registration n°740184 registered on July 26, 2000, for goods and services in Nice classification 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40, and 42.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"saiht-gobain.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}