Saints-gobeins.com

The timeline behind saints-gobeins.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. omo jason Case No. D2026-3932 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie De Saint-Gobain, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is omo jason, Benin. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <saints-gobeins.com> is registered with WEDOS Internet, a.s. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 2, 2026. On September 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 4, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (NOT IDENTIFIED) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 4, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 4, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 September 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 30, 2026. The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background According to information in the Complaint, the Complainant is a French company specialized in the production, processing and distribution of materials for the construction and industrial markets. It is one of the top industrial groups in the world with around EUR 46.5 billion in turnover in 2025 and 162,000 employees. The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of various trademarks relating to its brand SAINT-GOBAIN, including, but not limited to the following: - International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (figurative) No. 740184, registered on July 26, 2000, for goods and services in classes 01, 02, 03, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 38, 40, and 42; - International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (figurative), No. 596735, registered on November 2, 1992, for goods in classes 01, 06, 09, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24; and - International trademark SAINT-GOBAIN (figurative), No. 551682, registered on July 21, 1989, for goods and services in classes 01, 06, 07, 09, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 37, 39, and 41. The Complainant also owns many domain names that include its trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, such as the domain name <saint-gobain.com> registered on December 29, 1995. The disputed domain name was registered on August 27, 2026, and resolves to a webhosting placeholder page. There is no evidence that the disputed domain name was used at any prior date. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, as the addition of the letter “s” twice and the substitution of the letter “a” by the letter “e” in the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN are not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SAINT-GOBAIN trademark. The disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. As regards the second element of the Policy, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license 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. Further, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN, registered in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, evidencing that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. With regard to the third element of the Policy, the Complainant submits that its trademark has a well-known character worldwide and given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The Complainant contends that the 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 disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such page 3 as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. The incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. Moreover, the disputed domain name was set up with Mail Exchange (“MX”) records, which suggest that it may be actively used for email purposes. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Likewise, paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, provides that “the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence”. No response has been received from the Respondent in this case. Even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, the Complainant still bears the burden of proving that all requirements are fulfilled. To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.2. Concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the trademark SAINT-GOBAIN for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, which consists of the obvious misspelling of the SAINT-GOBAIN trademark of the Complainant, with the addition of the letter “s” to “saint” and at the end of “gobein”, and the replacement of the letter “a” with an “e” in the middle of “gobain”. This misspelling in the disputed domain name, also referred to as typosquatting, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9). Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. It is the settled view of panels applying the Policy that the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) (here “.com”) should be disregarded under the first element test. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests page 4 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 that 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 3.1, 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. There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Also, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. By not replying to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. According to the unrebutted assertions of the Complainant, its SAINT-GOBAIN trademarks were used in commerce well before the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks. Given the long use of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel considers that the Respondent more likely than not knew of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The setting up of MX records is likely an indication that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, 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. Moreover, the Respondent has not participated in these proceedings and has failed to rebut the Complainant’s contentions and to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use. Based on page 5 the evidence and circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. 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 <saints-gobeins.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mihaela Maravela/ /Mihaela Maravela/ Mihaela Maravela Sole Panelist Date: October 7, 2026

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