{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108991", "time_of_filling": "2026-09-11 12:52:47", "domain_names": [ "schindlerelevatorcorporation.org", "schindlerelevator.online" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Slanařová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "INVENTIO AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Convey srl", "respondent": [ "james kate", "Attorney David" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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 <\/span>in over 100 countries, operates in 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.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of a large number of trademarks for the name SCHINDLER which are registered throughout the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the SCHINDLER trademark, which has been registered for many years, is highly distinctive and widely recognized worldwide in the field of elevators, escalators, and moving walkways.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant informs that it has been extensively using the SCHINDLER denomination across all major online environments, including its official website at https:\/\/group.schindler.com as well as its official accounts on leading social networks such as LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is also the holder of a number of domain names which include the term SCHINDLER.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The Complainant notes that the domain names in dispute are:<\/p>\n

1) <schindlerelevatorcorporation.org><\/p>\n

2) <schindlerelevator.online><\/p>\n

Despite the fact that the registrar verification has revealed two different registrants for the two domain names in dispute, according to the Complainant, the available evidence indicates that (i) the disputed domain names are subject to common control by a single person or entity acting through multiple aliases, and (ii) the determination of the dispute in a single consolidated proceeding would be procedurally efficient and fair and equitable to the parties.<\/p>\n

In particular, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain names share the following similarities: (i) the same look and feel (ii) same registration date for the names yetithailand.com; yeti-suomi.com; yeti-israel.com<\/span> (iii) common naming pattern, consisting of the “YETI” trademark combined with a generic\/geographic term, i.e., “thailand”, “-suomi”, “-israel”, and “cuppe”, which is composed by “cup”, i.e. one of the most sold items of YETI, and “pe”, i.e., the ccTLD of Peru.<\/span><\/p>\n

Accordingly, it is the Complainant's view that the Panel could consolidate the claims relating to the disputed domain names in a single administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant infers that the domain names in dispute are confusingly similar to the SCHINDLER trademark since they entirely include the Complainant's trademark combined with generic terms.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant informs that the domain names in dispute are not connected with nor authorized by the Complainant. In particular, the Complainant has never authorized or permitted the Respondents to use the mark SCHINDLER in their domain names. The Complainant also notes that the Respondents are not <\/span>commonly known by any of the domain names in dispute<\/span>. <\/p>\n

The Complainant also notes that, as evidenced by the screenshots provided at Annex 8, the disputed domain names resolved to websites displaying content that falsely suggested an association with the Complainant’s company. Such impersonation of the Complainant cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy and is incompatible with any legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also assumes that the domain names in dispute were registered in bad faith.  In particular, it is the Complainant's view that, given the well‑established reputation of the SCHINDLER name, and the Respondent’s deliberate incorporation of the terms \"elevator\" and \"corporation\" into the disputed domain names, it is clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights and intentionally targeted them at the time of registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

In addition, in the Complainant's view, the non-use of the domain names can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy in consideration of the characteristics of the case at hand.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant considers that the provision of incomplete and false information as well as the use of privacy shield at the time of registration of the disputed domain names, and the failure to respond to the Complainant’s communications intended to inform the Respondents of the ongoing abuses, are further factors that help to demonstrate the registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n