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": "
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant, founded in 1871, is a French industrial business trading internationally offering products for power management, automation, and related solutions. The Complainant is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market index. In 2023, the Complainant revenues amounted to 36 billion euros. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The addition of the letter “S” in the trademark constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC and is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. The slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n The addition of the gTLD suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n 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. <\/span><\/p>\n The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n 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. <\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The 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 the Complainant and its trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC (WIPO Case No. D2020-1403, Schneider Electric S.A. v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation \/ Sales department).<\/span><\/p>\n The misspelling of the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith (Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines).<\/p>\n 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 The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. 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 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’s rights under trademark law.<\/span><\/p>\n The incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/span><\/p>\n Although the domain name appears to be unused, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes (CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono).<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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 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": [
"Petr Hostaš"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-05-27 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "
<\/p>\n\n