The Complainant is Schneider Electric S.A., France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is ÿ¹ÿ¿ÿ¿ ÿ¿ÿ¿ÿªÿ¿ÿ¿ÿ¿, ÿ¹ÿ¿ÿ¿ ÿ¿ÿ¿ÿªÿ¿ÿ¿ÿ¿ , Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 18, 2020. On May 18, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 19, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 29, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 1, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 4, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 24, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 25, 2020. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a French company founded in 1871. It offers products for power managements, automation and related solutions. It is the owner, amongst others, of the domain names - International trademark registration No. 715395 for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC & device registered on March 15, 1999, to cover products and services in classes 06, 09,11, 36, 37, 39 and 42; and - European Union trademark registration No. 001103803 for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC & device registered on September 9, 2005, to cover products and services in classes 06, 09,11, 36, 37, 39 and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on March 8, 2018. Currently the disputed domain name resolves an active webpage displaying the Complainant’s trademark and products (Annex 6 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts to manufacture and offer products for power managements, automation and related solutions being widely known due to its worldwide presence and reputation. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademark, being the addition of the term “Iran” and the hyphen between the words not sufficient to avoid such likelihood of confusion. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name given that: (i) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, not carrying out any activity for, nor having any business with it; (iii) no license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or to apply for the registration of the disputed domain name; (iv) the Respondent is displaying the Complainant’s trademark, logo and products at the website that resolves from the disputed domain name seeking to create an association with the Complainant and to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill; and (v) the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name given that the disputed domain name does not disclose to Internet users that there is no commercial connection between the Complainant and the Respondent. Lastly, the Complainant asserts that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, it would be reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, what is further corroborated by the use made of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, seeking to pass off as the Complainant and intentionally misleading and attempting to redirect Internet users to its advantage. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name. In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademark, duly registered in several countries around the world. The disputed domain name, The first element of the Policy has therefore been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a nonexclusive list of circumstances that indicate the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. These circumstances are: (i) before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, in spite of not having acquired trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Respondent, in not responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This entitles the Panel to draw any such inferences from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on the Complainant to make a prima facie case against the Respondent. In that sense, the Complainant indeed states that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, not carrying out any activity for, nor having any business with it, as well as reassures that no license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or to apply for the registration of the disputed domain name. Also, the lack of evidence as to whether the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the absence of any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain name, corroborates with the indication of the absence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Given that the Respondent is displaying the Complainant’s trademark, logo and products at the website that resolves from the disputed domain name and that there appears not to exist at such webpage a disclaimer as to the lack of relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, the Panel finds that such use does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy indicates in paragraph 4(b)(iv) that bad faith can be found in the use of the domain name, with an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. In this case, the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website that displays the Complainant’s trademark, logo and products characterizes the Respondent’s intent of commercial gain by misleadingly diverting the Complainant’s consumers or merely earning revenues from the links that solely exist in view of the association with the Complainant’s trademark. Such use, in this Panel’s view, constitutes an attempt to profit from the fame and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark, thus capitalizing on the SCHNEIDER trademark by creating a likelihood of confusion in Internet users who are likely to believe that the disputed domain name is either connected, endorsed or authorized by the Complainant. For the reasons as those stated above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Sole Panelist
Date: July 3, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy