Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108152

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is the registered owner of many trademarks for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, e.g. European Union trademark registration No. 1103803 registered on September 9, 2005 for goods and services in the classes 6, 9, 11, 36, 37, 39 and 42.

It results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that it was founded in 1871 and is a French industrial business trading internationally. It manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions.

Furthermore, the Complainant uses the domain name <www.schneider-electric.com> for its corporate website.

The disputed domain name <scnnelder-electric.com> was registered on June 11, 2025. Furthermore, the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant proves that it currently resolves to an inactive website and previously resolved to a website prominently displaying without authorization the Complainant’s trademark and logo.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

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).

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).

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).

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.

1. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.

It results from the evidence provided that the Complainant is the registered owner of various SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademarks.

Prior UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.7. This Panel shares this view and notes that the disputed domain name  <scnnelder-electric.com> incorporates the dominant feature of the Complainant’s trademark, which is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.

In addition, it is the view of this Panel that the replacement of the letter “H” with the letter “N” and the replacement of the vocal “I” with the consonant “L” (in the verbal element SCHNEIDER) in the disputed domain name results to be a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark since the disputed domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.9).

Finally, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” of the disputed domain name is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.11.1).

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

2. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must secondly establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

In the Panel’s view, based on the undisputed allegations stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

According to the Complaint, which has remained unchallenged, the Complainant has no relationship in any way with the Respondent and did, in particular, not authorize the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC.

Furthermore, the Panel notes that there is no evidence showing that the Respondents might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is clearly a typosquatting of the Complainant’s trademark, so that this Panel finds it most likely that employing a misspelling in this way signals an intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse users seeking or expecting the Complainant.  This is also confirmed by the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves: a webshop displaying without authorization the Complainant’s trademark and logo.

It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.1). Since the Respondent in the case at hand failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence, this Panel finds, in the circumstances of this case, that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

3. According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must thirdly establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith. One of these circumstances is that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

It is the view of this Panel that these circumstances are met in the case at hand.

In the present case, the Panel shares the view of other UDRP panels and finds that the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC is well known.  Therefore, this Panel has no doubt that the Respondent positively knew or should have known the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.  This is underlined by the fact that the disputed domain name is clearly constituted by a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark.  Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith, WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4.  The Panel shares this view.

It results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that the disputed domain name resolved to a website reproducing without any authorization the Complainant’s trademark and logo. For the Panel, it is therefore evident that the Respondent knew the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Consequently, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent knew that the disputed domain name was a typosquatting of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.