{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-109009",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-09-18 09:42:36",
    "domain_names": [
        "squaredvfd.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "SNA HOLDING INC"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        " Bill  Kegley"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant (Ex &ndash; SQUARE D company), which was founded in 1902, is an American manufacturer of electrical equipment headquartered in Andover, Massachusetts. The Complainant is a flagship brand of Schneider Electric, which acquired the company in 1991.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant owns also the domain name &lt;squared.com&gt; registered since November 9, 1993.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered on April 20, 2017 and resolves to a website reproducing the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark to sell electrical products.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n<p>1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; trademark as it is identically contained. The addition of the sigle &ldquo;VFD&rdquo; (in reference with &ldquo;Variable Frequence Drive&rdquo;) 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&rsquo;s trademark. It is well-established that &ldquo;a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant&rsquo;s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the suffix &ldquo;.COM&rdquo; does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the Complainant&rsquo;s rights over the terms &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; have been confirmed by previous panel.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant asserts that 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.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized in any way. 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<p>Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to a website offering goods bearing the &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; trademark. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to disrupt the complainant&rsquo;s business and attract users by impersonating the complainant, as he presented himself as SQUARE D, by reproducing the SQUARE D trademark.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s well known and distinctive &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; trademark. A search about the terms &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; on Google refers to the Complainant. Furthermore, the website makes clear references to the &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; trademark and related electrical products.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the Complainant finds that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent deliberately and consciously targeted the Complainant&rsquo;s prior trademarks for &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo;.<\/p>\n<p>By using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is attempting to misrepresent itself as the Complainant or as connected to the &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; brands and products through its use of the website at the disputed domain name. Such intentional use of the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent&rsquo;s website on which Respondent is purporting to offer products which is manufactured by Complainant and competitors, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent&rsquo;s website and the competing goods, constitutes an abuse of the disputed domain name and Complainant&rsquo;s goodwill and reputation which constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>RESPONDENT<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable to provide the Decision.<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Rodolfo Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-10-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant owns the USPTO trademark &ldquo;SQUARE D&rdquo; registered since January 6, 1931.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "squaredvfd.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}