{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106419",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-04-05 13:25:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "schneiderelectricse.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Brian  Cook"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>According to the information provided by the registrar the disputed domain name &lt;schneiderelectricse.com&gt; was registered on 20 March 2024. &nbsp;&nbsp;<br \/><br \/>The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. In addition MX records have been set up.&nbsp;<\/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>According to the evidence submitted Complainant, which was founded in 1871, is a French industrial business trading internationally and is featured on the NYSE, Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market index. In 2023, Complainant&rsquo;s revenues amounted to 36 billion Euros<br \/><br \/>According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name directly and entirely incorporates Complainant&rsquo;s registered trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC along with the term &lsquo;&rsquo;se&rsquo;&rsquo;, a term that can be considered related to Complainant&rsquo;s company name. &nbsp;<br \/><br \/>According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of Complainant&rsquo;s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by Complainant. In addition, Respondent bears no relationship to Complainant and its trademark, and the disputed domain name has no other meaning except for referring to Complainant&rsquo;s company name and trademark. The disputed domain name points to a parking page. Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its trademark.<br \/><br \/>According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page. Complainant contends that 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 domain name by Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of Complainant&rsquo;s rights under trademark law. Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes.<br \/><br \/>Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. <br \/><br \/>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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&nbsp; Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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>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>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": [
        "Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of the international trademark nr. 715395 SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC registered on 15 March 1999.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "schneiderelectricse.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}