{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104059", "time_of_filling": "2021-10-05 11:41:03", "domain_names": [ "apcspares.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Schneider Electric IT Corporation" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "ODESIGNING WEB SERVICES" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a French industrial business founded in 1871 and trading internationally. The Complainant manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC40 stock market index, and its revenue in 2020 amounted to EUR 25.2 billion.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant informs that it is the owner of American Power Conversion (APC), a manufacturer of uninterruptible power supplies, electronics peripherals, and data center products.\r\n\r\nIn addition to the trade mark mentioned above and the many more trade marks in its portfolio, the Complainant informs that it is also the owner of numerous domain names which contain the mark APC, including , which was registered as far back as 1993.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 15 April 2020, and it resolves to an online shop which contains references to the Complainant and the Complainant’s products (“the Respondent’s website”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark APC. The addition of the term “spare” is insufficient to escape the finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trade mark APC. The Complainant refers to the WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v Vasiliy Terkin, according to which a domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trade mark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity under the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further alludes to the fact that UDRP panels have found that the Top-Level Domain (TLD) suffixes (<.com> in the present matter) are typically not relevant in the appreciation of confusing similarity. In this respect, the Complainant cites WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG v Macalve e-dominios S.A.\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant relies on WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v Modern Empire Internet Ltd. to elucidate the evidentiary test under the UDRP, which requires the Complainant to make out a prima facie case. If successfully made, the burden of production is shifted to the Respondent to elicit any evidence to the contrary.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised by, the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. The Respondent has not been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark APC nor to apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, in so far as the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name. On this point, the Complainant cites Forum Claim No. FA1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant articulates that there is no information to identify the owner of the Respondent’s website.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant informs that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays the Complainant’s trade mark APC along with competing products, in an attempt by the Respondent to pass itself off as the Complainant. The Complainant contends on this point that such an attempt is a further indicator of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Lastly, and in furtherance of this particular ground, the Complainant cites Forum Claim No. FA1299362, American Power Conversion, Corp. v. Redy Battery Co. (in relation to the domain name ).\r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent’s website sells products that directly compete and disrupt with the Complainant’s business, such that this gives rise to a finding of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the Complainant states that the Respondent has attempted to pass itself off as the Complainant by displaying the Complainant’s trade mark APC on the Respondent’s website, as well as selling competing products.\r\n\r\nOn these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).", "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).", "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).", "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": [ "Dr Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-11-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark, amongst others:\r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 715395, dated 13 January 1995, for the stylised mark APC AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION, in class 9 of the Nice Classification.", "decision_domains": { "APCSPARES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }