The Complainant is a French industrial business, trading internationally, which manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions. It is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market indices, and reported revenues of EUR 34.2 billion in 2022.<\/p>\n
In addition to the Complainant’s SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC registered trademark, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing domain names such as <schneiderelectric.com>, registered since April 4, 1996.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on November 8, 2023 and is currently inactive for web services. However, evidence has been produced demonstrating that it was used on November 9, 2023 in connection with a phishing scheme. On or about that date, an e-mail address was created at the disputed domain name which was used in order to impersonate an employee of the Complainant in an attempt to induce the recipient of an e-mail from the disputed domain name to make an improper payment.<\/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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademark, subject to an obvious misspelling suppressing the letters “c” and “h” and adding the letter “s”. This 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 slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Previous panels have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the Whois information is not similar thereto.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for the Respondent and has no business with it. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademark, nor permission to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark, namely it was registered in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, and this can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name concerned.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page but has been used in connection with a phishing scheme in order that the Respondent may pass itself off as one of the Complainant’s employees. This is neither a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use thereof.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have seen this as evidence of bad faith. The disputed domain name was used in a phishing scheme whereby the Respondent attempted to pass itself off as an employee of the Complainant in order to receive an unauthorized payment. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge thereof. It is well established that using a domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent activity constitutes solid evidence of bad faith use.<\/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": [
"Andrew Lothian"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-12 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Among others, the Complainant is owner of International Registered Trademark No. 715395 being a figurative mark consisting of the words SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC in stylized typeface, registered on March 15, 1999 in Classes 6, 9, 11, 36, 37, 39 and 42, designated in respect of multiple territories.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"sneiders-electric.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}