FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant, founded in 1871, is a French industrial business that trades internationally. It manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions. The Complainant's corporate website can be found at <www.se.com>.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market index. In 2024, the Complainant’s revenues amounted to 38 billion euros.<\/p>\n
For its activities, the Complainant has developed “ECOSTRUXURE”, a solution that connects companies from one end of the production chain to the other, collects critical data from sensors and transmits it to the cloud, and analyzes the data to derive actionable intelligence.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names, including the trademark “ECOSTRUXURE”, such as <ecostruxure.com>, which was registered on December 16, 2008.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on May 6, 2025, and resolves to the Complainant’s official website <www.se.com>. MX servers are configured.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “ECOSTRUXURE” as it is identically contained.<\/p>\n Indeed, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the term “SE” (short of “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark “ECOSTRUXURE\". It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not listed in the Whois database as the owner of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant. The Complainant contends that 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.<\/p>\n Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark “ECOSTRUXURE”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services utilizing the disputed domain name, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it.<\/p>\n Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark “ECOSTRUXURE” as it is identically contained.<\/p>\n On those facts, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, to the Complainant infers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n Besides, the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website. Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has knowledge of the Complainant’s rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, which is a hallmark of bad faith.<\/p>\n Consequently, the disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent in an effort to take advantage of the good reputation Complainant had built up in its trademark, with the sole aim to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names.<\/p>\n Finally, MX servers are configured which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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 have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Rodolfo Rivas Rea"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-23 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns several trademarks, including the terms “ECOSTRUXURE”, such as:<\/p>\n\n