The Complainant is Schneider Electric S.A., France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Netherlands / sales department, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2020. On June 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 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 June 5, 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 8, 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 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 28, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 29, 2020. The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 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 manufacturer of power management, automation and related solution and owns European Union registration No. 001103803 registered on September 9, 2005 and international registration No. 715395 registered on March 15, 1999 for the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The Complainant has also registered domain names with the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The disputed domain name was registered on May 21, 2020 and resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The disputed domain name contains the trademark of the Complainant and simply adds to it the letter “e”. This is a case of typosquatting. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD") “.com” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. Additionally, when a domain name incorporates a complainant’s trademark in its entirety, that is sufficient to establish confusing similarity. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. Further, the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark given the reputation of the Complainant and the distinctiveness of its trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website and could be used for email purposes. Both these elements indicate that the use would be only for bad faith and illegitimate purposes. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC with the addition of the letter “e”. This type of conduct is typosquatting. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant and its trademark are well-known worldwide. The Complainant has been established almost 150 years ago while the disputed domain name was only registered a couple of months ago. The Respondent must have been fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. In addition, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Passive holding has been considered by UDRP panels to constitute bad faith. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: July 9, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy