{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107407", "time_of_filling": "2025-03-14 11:08:42", "domain_names": [ "schneiderelectricdms.com", "schneiderelectricdms.pro" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Idah Idah" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, which was founded in 1871, is a French industrial business trading internationally. It manufactures and offers 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 2024, the Complainant revenues amounted to 38 billion euros.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the domain name <schneiderelectric.com> registered in 1996.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered on December 2, 2024 and redirect to third parties’ websites. Besides, the disputed domain names are offered for sale. Finally, MX servers are configured on both disputed domain names.<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT<\/b><\/p>\n

A. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The only difference lies in the addition of the generic term “DMS” to trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC in the domain names. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLDs “.pro” and “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designations as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES<\/strong>
The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or that it has legitimate interest over the disputed domain names. The complainant equally submits that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant equally submits that the Respondent is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, as they redirect to third parties’ websites and are offered for sale.

C. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH

<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The Complainant also submits that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation; it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n

The use of the disputed domain names in relation with redirections to third parties’ websites, the fact that they are offered for sale above out-of-pocket costs and that MX records are linked to the disputed domain names are further elements demonstrating the Respondent's bad faith.

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT

<\/strong>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [ "Arthur Fouré" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-09 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the numerous trademarks, including:<\/p>\n