Saint-gobalns.com

The timeline behind saint-gobalns.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN v. Dular Niyangoda, itele Case No. D2026-0029 1. The Parties The Complainant is COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Dular Niyangoda, itele, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <saint-gobalns.com> is registered with Squarespace Domains LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2026. On January 7, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 7, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 8, 2026, providing for the Complainant’s information further registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 1, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 2, 2026. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on February 4, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant, Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, is a French company established 350 years ago with a turnover of approximately EUR 46.6 billion in 2024 and employing approximately 161,000 people globally. It is one of the world’s top industrial groups, specializing in the production, processing, and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks SAINT-GOBAIN, registered worldwide, such as: - European Union Trade Mark SAINT-GOBAIN n°001552843 registered on December 18, 2001; - International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°740184 registered on July 26, 2000; - International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°740183 registered on July 26, 2000; - International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°596735 registered on November 2, 1992; - International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°551682 registered on July 21, 1989; and - United States trademark SAINT-GOBAIN n°1648605 registered on June 25, 1991. The Complainant owns the domain name <saint-gobain.com>. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 17, 2025. The disputed domain name is not active. It resolves to a website with only the following sentence: “We're under construction. Please check back for an update soon.”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. In this case the Respondent has substituted of the letter “i” by the letter “l” and added a letter “s” in the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN. page 3 The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that: - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating a typosquatted variation of the SAINT-GOBAIN trademark in December 2025, whereas the Complainant has continuously held rights in the trademark for several decades on a worldwide basis; - the Complainant is a well-established company which has been operating for decades worldwide under the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v. On behalf of saintgobain- recherche.net owner, Whois Privacy Service / Grigore PODAC, WIPO Case No. D2020-3549); - the consensus view of UDRP panels is that the practice of typosquatting (“saint-gobalns” instead of “SAINT-GOBAIN”) may in itself be evidence of a bad faith registration of a domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1); and - the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant's well-known trademark. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the misspelling of the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name signals an intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name including as in this case a page “under construction” would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the page 4 Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name (a clear typosquatting case), and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <saint-gobalns.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: February 9, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.