1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights
The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademark "schneider electric" and of the domain name <schneider-electric.com>.
The disputed domain name is composed by the terms "SCHNEILDER-ELECTRIC". The Panel finds that the trademark “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC" is fully recognizable in the disputed domain name and that the addition of the letter "L" and the element "-" has no impact in the confusing similarity assessment.
According to a consolidated case law in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in it, the confusing similarity threshold is met.
Furthermore, the addition of “.com” is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.
As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.
2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
According to the information provided by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent, Big Meech is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor it is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks.
Additionally, the disputed domain name links to a PPC webpage.
The Panel finds that such use discloses an absence of a bona fide offering of goods or services and of a legitimate noncommercial/ fair use of the disputed domain name. In the view of the Panel, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks, the sponsored links are used by the Respondent to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC" trademark.
For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.
3. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith
The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC;
(ii) the disputed domain name is a clear and obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark (i.e. typosquatting).
Previous panels found that typosquatting discloses an intention on the part of the respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting to find a website related to the complainant.
As regards use in bad faith, the disputed domain name currently resolve to PPC webpages. The links sponsored through the disputed domain name are not explicable by a "dictionary meaning" of the word "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. As a consequence the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is used to exploit the reputation and distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark for the Respondent's commercial gain and such use is considered in bad faith,
All above considered the Panel finds the evidence submitted as sufficient to prove use and registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
|