{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105534", "time_of_filling": "2023-06-15 09:32:16", "domain_names": [ "schneider-elektric.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Galib Gahramanov (G Domains)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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. <\/span>The Complainant is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market index. In 2022, the Complainant revenues amounted to 34.2 billion euros. <\/span>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.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on 17 September 2011 and resolves to a parking page with commercial links.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name, and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/span><\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n

The Complainant made the following contentions:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC”. The replacing of the letter “C” by “K” in the trademark constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark and is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar (see CAC Case No. 103960 where the panel found obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark in SCHNAIDER ELECTRIC instead of SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC as clear evidence of \"typosquatting“). The Complainant also contends that the addition of the gTLD suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to its trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. Thus, the Complainant believes the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant then points to the established case law on a prima facie case and the reversal of burden of proof to the Respondent. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and that it is consequently not known as the disputed domain name. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

Besides, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC”. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page with commercial links. Past panels have found it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

Turning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant trademark “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC”. Alluding to the well-known character of its trademark, the Complainant mentions the WIPO Case No. D2020-1403 in which the panel concluded that: “the Complainant and its trademark are well-known worldwide. The Complainant has been established almost 150 years ago while the disputed domain name was only registered a couple of months ago. The Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.”<\/span><\/p>\n

Besides, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. On those facts, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. <\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his own website thanks to the Complainant’s trademarks for its own commercial gain, which is an evidence of bad faith (as confirmed by previous panels). On all these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-07-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the following trademarks:<\/span><\/p>\n