{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105761", "time_of_filling": "2023-09-06 10:46:26", "domain_names": [ "SCHINEIDERELECTRIC.COM" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Michelle Acosta" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a French industrial group founded in 1871, and now doing business internationally. It manufactures products for power management, automation, and related solutions. The Complainant's corporate website can be found at www.schneider-electric.com<\/a>. The Complainant is listed 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

The disputed domain name <schineiderelectric.com> was registered on 24 July 2023 and <\/strong>redirects to a parking page. The MX servers are configured for the disputed domain name. We have no information about the Respondent other than the name Michelle Acosta and the address in Dallas, Texas.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <schineiderelectric.com<\/strong>> is confusingly similar to its trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The addition of the letter “I” in the trademark constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC and is Typosquatting. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (CAC Case No. 103960, SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. Michele Swanson).<\/em><\/p>\n

The Complainant says the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name (for instance the Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com>). <\/em>Further, the Respondent is not licensed, affiliated with nor authorized by, the Complainant and no rights can arise from typosquatting which is evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group. <\/em><\/p>\n

As to Bad Faith, the misspelling was intended to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and their reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks. The incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, can evidence of bad faith registration and use (see WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows and <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).<\/em><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.  <\/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": [ "Victoria McEvedy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns several trademarks including the terms “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC” including:<\/p>\n