{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103291",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-09-17 09:49:08",
    "domain_names": [
        "schneider-elektrik.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Leila Yang"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a large French-based multinational energy and automation company, founded in 1836. Ever since, the Complainant has acquired commercial presence all around the world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns a large-sized portfolio of trademarks including the wording \"Schneider Electric\", among which several French and US registrations dating back to 1998. It also owns a multitude of related domain names (according to the Complainant), like <schneider-electric.com> since October 2, 1997.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <schneider-elektrik.com> was registered on May 22, 2020 by the Respondent.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its “Schneider Electric” trademark, as it is a misspelling of this wholly incorporated trademark. This last element is sufficient to support the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Indeed, the mere misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark does not change the overall impression of a most likely connection with the trademark “Schneider Electric” of the Complainant. As to the gTLD “.com”, the Complainant suggests that it should be disregarded, as per the usual practice.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant maintains that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, the Complainant is not affiliated with nor has it ever authorised the Respondent to register its trademark as a domain name and the Complainant has no business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Schneider Electric trademark, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark in an intentionally designed way with the aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, and this is evidence of the fact that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith respect to use in bad faith, the Complainant points out that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name as an inactive website, a fact that in combination with the incorporation of a famous trademark in a domain name- proves use in bad faith. The latter is also substantiated, according to the Complainant, by the fact that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, so that emails could be sent to and received from it. \r\n\r\nFor all these reasons, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.",
    "rights": "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).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's whole trademark (Schneider Electric), written in a misspelled way, with a hyphen in the middle. Neither the hyphen, nor the replacement of the two letters “c” by “k” in the disputed domain name are sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. This is a clear case of typosquatting.\r\n\r\nAs far as the gTLD \".com\" is concerned, it is generally recognized that top level domains do not have any bearing in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity, according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nHence, the Panel is satisfied that the first requirement under the Policy is met.\r\n",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).\r\n\r\nSince proving a negative fact is almost impossible, panelists in UDRP proceedings have generally agreed that it is sufficient for the complainant to establish a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name to shift the burden of proof to the respondent.\r\n\r\nIn the case at issue, the Complainant argued that it had never authorised the Respondent to register the Schneider Electric trademark in a domain name, and that it had never licensed its trademark to the Respondent. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Respondent has not demonstrated any use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nFinally, there is no other evidence in the case file that could demonstrate that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nIn view of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order to rebut the Complainant's arguments, the Respondent had the possibility to make his own defense. However, the Respondent has chosen not to file a Response.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel is satisfied that also the second requirement under the Policy is met.",
    "bad_faith": "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).\r\n\r\nAs far as registration in bad faith is concerned, given the reputation of the Complainant's trademark and the fact that the disputed domain name fully incorporates this trademark (even in a misspelled way), it is evident that, at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant's trademark. The registration as domain name of a third party's well-known trademark with full knowledge of the fact that the rights over this trademark belong to a third party amounts to registration in bad faith.\r\n\r\nWith respect to use in bad faith, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website (index). This fact is to be combined with the full incorporation of the Complainant’s reputable trademark in the disputed domain name. For this Panel, same as for many previous panels, such misleading behaviour clearly amounts to use in bad faith. Therefore, it is impossible to conceive any plausible active use of the disputed domain name that would be legitimate.\r\n\r\nAn additional bad faith element in this case is the setting up of the disputed domain name with mail exchange (MX) records, which could enable the Respondent to send\/receive e-mails from\/to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Panel finds it clear that the disputed domain name was used in bad faith. \r\n\r\nFor all circumstances mentioned above, the Panel is satisfied that also the third requirement under the Policy is satisfied.",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Sozos-Christos Theodoulou"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-10-16 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In these proceedings, the Complainant relies on the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- Schneider Electric (fig.), International Registration No. 715395, registered as of March 15, 1999 (incl. in China), in the name of Schneider Electric SE (the Complainant); \r\n\r\n- Schneider S Electric (fig.), International Registration No. 715396, registered as of March 15, 1999 (incl. in China), in the name of Schneider Electric SE (the Complainant); and,\r\n\r\n- Schneider Electric (fig.), EU Trade Mark Registration No. 001103803, registered as of March 12, 1999, in the name of Schneider Electric SE (the Complainant). \r\n\r\nIt is worth noting that, the Complainant owns many similar trademarks in various countries, which have not been cited in these proceedings.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "SCHNEIDER-ELEKTRIK.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}