Schneider Electric SE v Stephen mckee, schneider.fr.com

WIPO Case No. D2025-0031

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Schneider Electric SE v. Stephen mckee, schneider.fr.com

Case No. D2025-0031

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Schneider Electric SE, France, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is Stephen mckee, schneider.fr.com, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <frschneiderelectric.com> is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 6, 2025. On January 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 7, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, schneider.fr.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 13, 2025, 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 January 14, 2025.

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 January 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Indrek Eelmets as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 2025. 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, which was founded in 1871, is a French manufacturer of products for power management, automation, and related solutions. In 2023, the Complainant’s revenues amounted to EUR 36 billion.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC in many countries around the world, such as:

-	International Trademark Registration SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC No. 715395 registered on March 15,
1999;
-	International Trademark Registration SCHNEIDER S ELECTRIC No. 715396 registered on March 15,
1999;
-	European Union Registration SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC No. 001103803 registered on September 9,
2005.

The Complainant operates, inter alia, the domain name <schneiderelectric.com> which was registered on

April 4, 1996.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 11, 2024. At the time this Complaint was
submitted the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying the text: “We're under construction.

Please check back for an update soon.”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use the SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademark, or to register and use the disputed domain name incorporating this trademark. The Respondent uses a confusingly similar business name to that of the Complainant in order to increase the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Complainant is concerned that the disputed domain name has mail exchange (“MX”) records, suggesting potential email use. This indicates bad faith, as any emails from it would not serve a good-faith purpose.

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, the geographical term “fr”, may bear on assessment of the second
and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, given the Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations for, and its worldwide use of the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, the Panel finds it highly unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant’s mark. The use of “fr” in the disputed

page 4

domain name, commonly recognized as the country acronym for France, further points to the Respondent’s
awareness and targeting of the Complainant, who is headquartered in France.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent’s choice of its organization name, the lack of any response by the Respondent in the proceedings, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <frschneiderelectric.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Indrek Eelmets/
Indrek Eelmets
Sole Panelist
Date: March 4, 2025