Complainant states that it “is a worldwide reference in sustainable habitat and construction markets”; “takes a long-term view in order to develop products and services for its customers that facilitate sustainable construction”; and “is now one of the top industrial groups in the world with around 46.5 billion euros in turnover in 2025 and 162,000 employees.” Complainant also states that it is the registrant of the domain name <saint-gobain.com>, which was created on December 29, 1995.<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on May 29, 2026, and, according to the Complaint and a screenshot provided as an annex thereto, is inactive.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SAINT-GOBAIN Trademark because, inter alia<\/em>, the Disputed Domain Name wholly contains the trademark, and “the addition of the term ‘BRASILIT’ worsens the likelihood of confusion, as BRASILIT is one of the Complainant’s Brazilian subsidiaries.”<\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “Respondent is not identified in the Whois as the disputed domain name, but as ‘Rafael Luis Sindeaux de Sousa’”; “Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant” “Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent”; “[n]either licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SAINT-GOBAIN or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant”; and because the Disputed Domain Name is inactive, “it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain names [sic].”<\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, “the Complainant trademark has a well-known character worldwide and has a long-standing worldwide operating website under the <saint-gobain.com> domain name”; “the addition of the term ‘BRASILIT’ to the Complainant’s trademark cannot be coincidental as the term refers to the Complainant’s division BRASILIT”; “Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law”; and “the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website.”<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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": [
"Douglas Isenberg"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-02 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant states that it, “is the owner of several trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN, registered worldwide,” including the following for which it provided documentation:<\/p>\n These registrations are referred to herein as the “SAINT-GOBAIN Trademark.”<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"brasilitsaintgobain.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n