{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105683",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-08-04 10:16:40",
    "domain_names": [
        "schneiiderelectric.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Graham  Burdis"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant, founded in 1871, is a French industrial business trading internationally. It manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Besides the Complainant&rsquo;s Trademarks, the Complainant also owns the following domain names which incorporates SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC Trademark as &lt;schneider-electric.com&gt; registered since October 3, 1997, which displays Complainant&rsquo;s corporate website; and &lt;schneiderelectric.com&gt;, registered since April 4, 1996.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The disputed domain name &lt;<strong>schneiiderelectric.com<\/strong>&gt; was registered on February 16, 2023 and resolves to an inactive website.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p><u>Complainant Contentions<\/u>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name &lt;schneiiderelectric.com&gt; is confusingly similar to its trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC; that the addition of the letter &ldquo;i&rdquo; in the trademark constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC and is characteristic of a Typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark and the disputed domain name, citing <em>SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. michele Swanson<\/em>, CAC Case No. 103960, (&ldquo;the obvious misspelling of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark SCHNAIDER ELECTRIC instead of SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC is a clear evidence of \"typosquatting&ldquo;.)<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, due to the Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as the disputed domain name, <em>citing Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group<\/em>, Forum Case No. FA 1781783 (&ldquo;Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as &ldquo;Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.&rdquo; The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).&rdquo;); that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC in any way; that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent; that either license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant also contends that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in respect of the dispute domain name due to the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC; that Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users&rsquo; typographical errors and can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, citing <em>The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group<\/em>, Forum Case No. 1597465 (&ldquo;The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy 4(a)(ii).&rdquo;).<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is currently inactive, that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, which confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name, citing <em>Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket \/ JM Consultants<\/em>, ForumCase No. FA 1773444 (&ldquo;The Panel finds that Respondent&rsquo;s lack of content at the disputed domain shows the lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii).&rdquo;).<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name &lt;schneiiderelectric.com&gt; is confusingly similar to the Complainant trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, citing <em>Schneider Electric S.A. v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation \/ Sales department<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2020-1403 (&ldquo;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.&rdquo;); that such misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, evidencing Respondent&rsquo;s bad faith, citing <em>Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines<\/em>, Forum Case No. FA 877979, (\"In addition, Respondent&rsquo;s misspelling of Complainant&rsquo;s MICROSOFT mark in the &lt;microssoft.com&gt; domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).\").<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<br \/><br \/><\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant&rsquo;s rights under trademark law; that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use, citing <em>Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and <em>CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2000-0400.&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Response<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Respondent did not reply to any of the Complainant's contentions.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">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": [
        "María Alejandra López García"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-30 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant, founded in 1871, is a French industrial business trading internationally. It manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The Complainant owns the following trademarks:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">International trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 715395, registered on March 15, 1999, and in force until March 15, 2029;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">International trademark SCHNEIDER S ELECTRIC AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 715396, registered on March 15, 1999, and in force until March 15, 2029;<\/li>\n<li style=\"text-align: justify;\">EUIPO trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC AND DESIGN, Reg. No. 001103803 filed on March 12, 1999, registered on September 9, 2005, and in force until March 12, 2029.<\/li>\n<\/ul>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "schneiiderelectric.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}