The Complainant is a member of the French based SAINT-GOBAIN group and is a company specialising in the distribution of construction materials and the manufacture of prefabricated and ready-mixed concrete to a mainly commercial clientele in the construction industry. The Complainant's main website for its business is at the domain name <pointp.com> which was registered on February 19, 1997 and is owned by one of the Complainant's group companies.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names <pointp-fr.com> and <pointo-fr.com> were registered on November 6 and 13, 2025 respectively through the same registrar although they were ostensibly registered to different owners both based in the United States. The disputed domain name <pointp-fr.com> is inactive and the disputed domain name <pointo-fr.com> re-directs to a registrar's parking page. <\/p>\n
<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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>\n
The Complainant has requested the consolidation of these on the following basis: <\/p>\n
(i) The disputed domain names have been registered via the same registrar, seven days apart;<\/p>\n
(ii) The registrant of the disputed domain name <pointo-fr.com> is \"John Doe\" which the Complainant asserts is not the Respondent's real identity;<\/p>\n
(iii) The registrant of the disputed domain name <pointp-fr.com> is listed as \"Saids lite\" which it says does not appear to have any online existence; <\/p>\n
(iv) Both disputed domain names are constructed the same way;<\/p>\n
(v) Both disputed domain names have been used in a phishing scheme, in which the sender attempted to masquerade as the same POINT P employee.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Previous panels have looked at whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) if consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency also underpins a panel's consideration of a consolidation scenario. <\/p>\n
In this case the disputed domain names have a similar structure and were registered a week apart through the same registrar. The disputed domain name <pointo-fr.com> is listed as being owned by \"John Doe\" which being typically used as the pseudonym for an anonymous litigation party is most likely contrived. The disputed domain name <pointp-fr.com> is listed as \"Saids lite\" which according to the Complainant does not appear to have an on-line existence. The Complainant has submitted evidence which suggests that the disputed domain name <pointo-fr.com> has been actively used in a phishing scheme and that the disputed domain name <pointp-fr.com> has been indicated as a likely spam address. Considering in addition and as discussed below, that neither disputed domain name re-directs to an active legitimate business website and that neither Respondent has disputed the request for consolidation or the Complaint overall, the Panel finds that it is most likely that the two disputed domain names are in common control and that consolidation is fair and equitable to the parties and is the most efficient way of proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel orders the consolidation into these proceedings of the disputed domain name <pointo-fr.com> and of the disputed domain name <pointp-fr.com>.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr Alistair Payne (Presiding Panelist)" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns several trade mark registrations for its POINT P mark, including International trade mark number 697482 for POINT.P registered on March 10, 1998, French trade mark number 4015854 for POINT P registered on June 27, 2013 and International trade mark number 1654998 for POINT P registered on December 8, 2021.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "pointp-fr.com": "TRANSFERRED", "pointo-fr.com": "TRANSFERRED" } }