Westmore · UDRP DecisionShneider-eletric.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <shneider-eletric.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC mark because it was a typographical variation deleting the letter “c”. The Complainant established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which the Respondent did not rebut. Bad faith was found from the well-known character of the mark, the recent typosquatting registration, passive holding, non-response, use of a privacy service, and the implausibility of any good-faith use.
The timeline behind shneider-eletric.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind shneider-eletric.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how an inactive domain incorporating a close misspelling of a well-known mark can satisfy all three UDRP elements. The Panel’s bad-faith finding did not depend on active website content; it rested on the targeted typographical variation, the age and reputation of the mark, non-response, privacy-service use, and the absence of any plausible good-faith use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Schneider Electric SE v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410667350 / Maria Conceição de Souza Lima Case No. D2021-2491 1. The Parties The Complainant is Schneider Electric SE, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 12410667350, Canada / Maria Conceição de Souza Lima, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <shneider-eletric.com> is registered with Google LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2021. On August 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 2, 2021, 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 August 9, 2021, 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 August 10, 2021. On August 9, 2021, the Center transmitted another email communication to the Parties in English and Portuguese regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 10, 2021, the Complainant confirmed their request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 in English and Portuguese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 16, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 7, 2021. The Center appointed Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira as the sole panelist in this matter on October 6, 2021. 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, founded in 1871, is a French industrial business trading internationally, which manufactures and offers products for power management, automation, and related solutions. The Complainant’s corporate website can be found at “www.schneiderelectric.com”. The Complainant is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market index. In 2020, the Complainant revenues amounted to EUR 25.2 billion. The Complainant owns several trademarks for the term SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC and variations thereof: - SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, International trademark no. 715395, registered on March 15, 1999; - SCHNEIDER S ELECTRIC, International trademark no. 715396, registered on March 15, 1999; - SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, European Union Trade Mark no. 1103803, registered on September 9, 2005. The Complainant is also the owner of many domain names, which include the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, such as <schneider-electric.com> registered and used since October 3, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on July 19, 2021 and resolves to an inactive page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. The deletion of the letter “c” in the disputed domain name is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. This is a case of “typosquatting”, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark: SHNEIDER ELECTRIC instead of SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. 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. Finally, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Preliminary Issue – Language of the Proceeding Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Registrar confirmed that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in Portuguese. The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English. The respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding, or otherwise participate in the proceeding. Considering the Complainant’s request and the fact that the Respondent did not reply to any of the communications sent by the Center, all of which were transmitted in English and Portuguese, the Panel does not consider it prejudicial to the Respondent if English were adopted as the language of the proceeding. Moreover, the proceeding would be unduly delayed if the Complainant was requested to translate the Complaint into Portuguese. Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceeding. B. 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 deletion of the letter “c” in the disputed domain name. This type of conduct is typosquatting and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The gTLD “.com” should generally 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. C. 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 the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way and never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, therefore 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. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant and its trademark are well-known worldwide. The Complainant was established almost 150 years ago, is featured on the NYSE Euronext and the French CAC 40 stock market index, 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. In the present circumstances, including the typosquatting of the Complainant’s well known trademark, the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service, and implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. 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 <shneider-eletric.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Gonçalo M. C. Da Cunha Ferreira Sole Panelist Date: October 20, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around shneider-eletric.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.