Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108769

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

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks:

• International trade mark n° 715395 for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC in stylised text, registered on March 15, 1999 in classes 6, 9, 11, 36, 37, 39, 42, and which has proceeded to grant in multiple jurisdictions;
• International trade mark n° 715396 for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC in stylised text combined with a device, registered on March 15, 1999 in classes 6, 9, 11, 36, 37, 39, 42, and which has proceeded to grant in multiple jurisdictions; and
• European trade mark n° 1103803 for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC in stylised text, registered on March 12, 1999 in classes 6, 9, 11, 36, 37, 39, 42.

FACTS CLAIMED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT

The Complainant, which was founded in 1871, is a French industrial business trading internationally. It manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions. The Complainant's corporate website can be found at www.schneider-electric.com.

The Complainant is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market index. In 2024, the Complainant’s revenues amounted to 38 billion euros.

The Complainant is also the owner of many domain names which include the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC such as <schneiderelectric.com> registered since 4 April 1996.

The Domain Name was registered on 13 January 2026 and resolves to a website reproducing the Complainant’s logo. Besides, MX servers are configured.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the Domain Name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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.

The Complainant has demonstrated that it has registered trade mark rights in various marks which substantially comprise the words SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The Domain Name can only sensibly be read as the term SCHNEIDER, which is the most distinctive element of those marks, combined with the ".com" gTLD. Accordingly, the Complainant’s trade mark is recognisable in the Domain Name. This is sufficient for a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1). The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name inherently and deliberately impersonates the Complainant, and has been registered and used for a website that deliberately impersonates the Complainant. In this respect the Domain Name takes the form that comprises the most distinctive element of its trade mark combined with a geographic term and the ".com" gTLD. Absent evidence or argument to the contrary, the Panel finds that this is most likely to be understood by internet users as referring to the Complainant. Further, and in any event, the website operating from the Domain Name falsely purports to be that of the Complainant, using the Complainant’s trade marks in full, purports to provide information about the Complainant and contains a copyright notice that takes the form “Scheider Electric © 2000”.

There is no right or legitimate interest in registering and using a domain name that deliberately and falsely impersonates a trade mark holder, and the registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose is in bad faith. (On the issue of legitimate rights and interests where a domain name takes the form of a trade mark and a geographical term, see also section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1).

Further, the Respondent's use of the Domain Name falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.

In coming to this conclusion, the Panel has not needed to take into account the Complainant’s contentions as to the configuration of MX records and declines to do so.