{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108367", "time_of_filling": "2026-01-27 10:10:23", "domain_names": [ "sanit--gobain.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Nicholas Hanna" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant is a French company that specializes in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. SAINT-GOBAIN is a worldwide reference in sustainable habitat and construction markets. For 350 years, it has consistently demonstrated its ability to invent products that improve the quality of life. It is now one of the top industrial groups in the world with around 46.6 billion Euros in turnover in 2024 and 161,000 employees.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is Nicholas Hanna based at the address of 208 Falcon Ridge Road, Great Falls, VA, Post Code 22066-3519, United States. The disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2026 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. It resolves to an inactive page.<\/span><\/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": "

A. COMPLAINANT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the registered trademark SAINT-GOBAIN in numerous jurisdictions as mentioned above in the IDENTIFICATION OF RIGHTS. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark. The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (i.e. the reversal of the letters “I” and “N”, and the addition of a hyphen) is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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

 <\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the grounds: i) it failed to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; ii) it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; iii) it is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with it. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to it to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name; iv) the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, which can evidence that it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; v) the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, which confirms that it has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

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

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: i) the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN has been used extensively worldwide and is well-known worldwide. The Respondent obviously knew the prior rights and wide use of SAINT GOBAIN by the Complainant, which is the only reason why it registered the disputed domain name; ii) the misspelling of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark, which is considered as evidence of bad faith; iii) the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. Previous panels have held that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use; iv) the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

B. RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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": [ "Yunze Lian" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN with device registered in numerous jurisdictions:<\/span><\/p>\n

International trademark No. 740183 registered on July 26, 2000 in 21 classes; <\/span><\/p>\n

International trademark No. 596735 registered on November 2, 1992 in 13 classes; <\/span><\/p>\n

International trademark No. 551682 registered on July 21, 1989 in 17 classes; <\/span><\/p>\n

US trademark No. 1648605 registered on June 25, 1991 in 7 classes. <\/span><\/p>\n

The trademarks are still valid at present and their registration dates predate the registration date of the disputed domain name registered on January 20, 2026.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also owns many domain names including its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as <saint-gobain.com> registered on December 29, 1995, prior to the registration date of the disputed domain name. SAINT-GOBAIN is also commonly used to designate the company name of the Complainant. <\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "sanit--gobain.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }