{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108564",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-04-10 07:51:41",
    "domain_names": [
        "schindlerescalator.net"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "INVENTIO AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Convey srl",
    "respondent": [
        "GUO FU LIU"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong><span>A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant is one of the world's leading manufacturers of escalators, moving walkways and elevators. It was founded in Switzerland in 1874. Today, it is present in over 100 countries, operates over 1,000 branches and employs more than 69,000 people worldwide. The production facilities are located in Brazil, China, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, India and the United States. Since the mid-1980s, it has acquired more than 60 companies. In 1980, it began its operations in China through a joint venture based in Beijing and headquartered in Shanghai. It now operates more than 20 branches throughout China. It has maintained a continuous presence in the Chinese market for more than 40 years. It has also contributed to major high<\/span>‑<span>rise and infrastructure projects worldwide. It is also globally recognized for its achievements in digital innovation. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>&nbsp;B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is GUO FU LIU, based at the address of 202, 2 Block, sunshine road, sunshine bay, shaxi, Zhong Shan Shi, Guang Dong,&nbsp;Post Code 528400, China. The disputed domain name was registered on February 12, 2026 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was passively held.<\/span><\/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><strong>A. COMPLAINANT <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Language of the Proceedings&nbsp; <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complaint is written in English. According to the registrar's verification response, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceeding in light of the following circumstances:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The disputed domain name incorporates the English word &ldquo;escalator&rdquo;, which indicates that the Respondent is familiar with the English language;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Respondent replied to the Complainant&rsquo;s C&amp;D letter in English, which demonstrates its ability to understand the English language;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>English is commonly used in international business. It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent understands the English language;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>Requiring a translation would not serve the interests of procedural efficiency and fairness.<\/span><span><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>&nbsp;The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:&nbsp; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SCHINDLER trademark, as it fully incorporates its well-known trademark, SCHINDLER, and the term <\/span>&ldquo;<span>escalator<\/span>&rdquo;<span> directly refers to its core products and business.<\/span><span> The combination of these two elements reinforces the association with the Complainant and its business in the field of elevators and escalators;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>It is well<\/span>‑<span>established under the UDRP that the addition of descriptive or generic terms referring to a complainant&rsquo;s goods or services does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity, but rather may increase the likelihood of confusion.&nbsp;<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><span>II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>It is not a licensee, distributor, or authorized representative of the Complainant, nor has the Complainant granted it any authorization to use the SCHINDLER trademark in the disputed domain name or in any other manner;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>It is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Its passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non‑commercial or fair use;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li><span>Its selling the disputed domain name for USD 1,600 demonstrates that its registration and retention of the disputed domain name is not for any legitimate interest;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>It has been granted an opportunity to present arguments that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, but it has failed to do so<\/span>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>&nbsp;III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: <\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The SCHINDLER trademark has been consistently recognized as a well<\/span>‑<span>known and highly distinctive mark in prior UDRP decisions. It is well-known in the world and in China. The disputed domain name incorporates the SCHINDLER trademark and associates it with the term &ldquo;escalator&rdquo;, which refers to the Complainant&rsquo;s core products. Such a composition demonstrates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, which clearly indicates its intention to target the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The disputed domain name is passively held. UDRP panels have consistently held that the passive holding of a domain name incorporating a well‑known trademark <\/span>may constitute bad faith where the overall circumstances of the case so indicate;<\/li>\n<li>It proposed to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for USD 1,600, which supports the finding of its registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>B. RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><span>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p><span>The language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not <\/span><span>respond to the issue of the language of the proceedings and did not reject the Complainant&rsquo;s request. <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Panel is given discretion under Paragraph 11 of the Rules to determine the appropriate language of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 10 of the Rules <\/span><span>mentions that the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Based on the following <\/span><span>factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties to have the language of the proceedings be English: <\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>The Complaint was written in English, an international language comprehensible to a wide range of internet users worldwide, including those living in China; <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Respondent replied to the Complainant&rsquo;s C&amp;D letter in English, which demonstrates its ability to understand the English language;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>While determining the language of the administrative proceedings, the Panel has a duty to consider who would suffer the greatest inconvenience as a result of the Panel's determination. On the one hand, the determination of English as the language of this administrative proceeding &ndash; a widely spoken language &ndash; is unlikely to cause the Respondent any inconvenience. The determination of Chinese as the language of this administrative proceeding, on the other hand, is very likely to cause the Complainant inconvenience, and to interfere with the overall due expedition of the proceedings under the Rules. See Burberry Limited v Fei Cheng, CAC-UDRP-106643; <\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond to reject its request.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>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.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Yunze Lian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p><span>The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the trademark SCHINDLER in numerous jurisdictions. <\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span>International Trademark No. 1265628 in classes 6, 7, 9, 37, 38, 42, 45, registered on May 1, 2015;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>UK Trademark No. UK00002002660 in classes 7, 9, 37, registered on December 29, 1995;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>International Trademark No. 1633618 in classes 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 21, registered on August 10, 2021;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>International Trademark No. 883565 in classes 6, 7, 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 42, 45, registered on January 13, 2006, valid in China;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>Chinese Trademark No. 254227 in class 9, registered on June 30, 1985;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>Chinese Trademark No. 19743609 in class 35, registered on June 14, 2017;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>US Trademark No. 3692635 in classes 6, 7, 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 42, 45, registered on October 6, 2009;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>International Trademark No. G809044 in 35, 42, 45, registered on July 16, 2003, valid in China;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span>International Trademark No. G779192 in class 16, registered on April 11, 2002, valid in China.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>The registration dates of the trademark predate the registration date of the disputed domain name, &lt;schindlerescalator.net &gt;, registered on February 12, 2026. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names, &lt;group.schindler.com&gt; and &lt;schindler.cn&gt;.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "schindlerescalator.net": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}