The Complainant is a French company operating for more than 350 years in the production, processing, and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial sectors. It is presented as a global leader in sustainable habitat and construction solutions, with a significant international presence, a 2024 turnover of approximately EUR 46.6 billion, and about 161,000 employees.<\/p>\n
The Complainant, owner of the “SAINT-GOBAIN” trademarks, alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <saintgobainabrasives.online> in a manner that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, without any rights and legitimate interest and in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to a website providing information regarding the company SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES A\/S, allegedly a part of the Complainant’s group of companies.<\/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 asserts that its trademark SAINT‑GOBAIN is widely recognized and that it also uses SAINT‑GOBAIN as its company name. The Complainant owns numerous domain names incorporating its SAINT‑GOBAIN mark, including <saint-gobain.com> registered in 1995. <\/p>\n
According to the Complaint, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 4 January 2026. The Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS data under a name corresponding to the disputed domain name and is alleged to have no affiliation with the Complainant. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves presents itself as relating to “SAINT‑GOBAIN ABRASIVES A\/S,” allegedly suggesting an association within the Complainant’s corporate group, which the Complainant denies.<\/p>\n
The Complainant relies on several SAINT‑GOBAIN trademark registrations, including multiple international registrations dating from 1989, 1992, and 2000, as well as a U.S. registration dating from 1991. These trademarks predate the registration of the disputed domain name by several decades. The Complaint asserts that SAINT‑GOBAIN is a well‑known and distinctive mark worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates its registered trademark SAINT‑GOBAIN and is therefore confusingly similar to it. The addition of the term “abrasives” is said not to dispel the confusion; to the contrary, the Complainant asserts that it exacerbates confusion because abrasives are among the Complainant’s product categories, including through its subsidiary Saint‑Gobain Abrasive Grains. The Complainant relies on prior decisions stating that incorporating a complainant’s entire mark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (e.g., WIPO Case No. D2003‑0888). The Top‑Level Domain “.online” is considered irrelevant for the purposes of the first element under established UDRP practice.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the name reflected in the disputed domain name, as evidenced by the WHOIS data. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the SAINT‑GOBAIN trademarks or to register the disputed domain name. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to impersonate or falsely affiliate with the Complainant—by hosting a website purporting to represent an entity allegedly within the Complainant’s group—constitutes clear evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It states that its SAINT‑GOBAIN mark is not only distinctive but well‑known worldwide, and the Respondent must have been aware of it at the time of registration given its long-standing use and global recognition. The Complainant claims that the Respondent deliberately created a likelihood of confusion by suggesting affiliation with the Complainant's group, particularly by using the term “abrasives,” an area in which the Complainant actively operates.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s website imitates the Complainant’s identity and activities to attract Internet users for commercial gain, falling squarely within the example of bad‑faith conduct under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent’s activities are also said to compete directly with the Complainant’s operations in the abrasives sector, thereby disrupting the Complainant’s business, which has been considered evidence of bad faith in prior UDRP cases.<\/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 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": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "