Schneiderupsdy.com

The timeline behind schneiderupsdy.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Schneider Electric Se v. 钱会田 (qianhuitian) Case No. D2026-0573 1. The Parties The Complainant is Schneider Electric Se, France, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is 钱会田 (qianhuitian), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <schneiderupsdy.com> is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 11, 2026. On February 11, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 12, 2026, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 12, 2026, 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 in English on the same day. On February 12, 2026, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On February 12, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 24, 2026. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on April 1, 2026. 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 industrial business founded in 1871, operating internationally in the field of power management, automation, and related solutions. The Complainant develops and offers a range of products and services in these sectors and conducts its activities on a global scale. The Complainant’s corporate website is located at “www.schneider-electric.com”. The Complainant is listed on the NYSE Euronext and is a constituent of the CAC 40 stock market index. According to the information provided, the Complainant’s revenues amounted to EUR 38 billion in 2024. The Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of trademarks comprising or incorporating the term SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, including in particular: (i) International trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, registration No. 715395, registered on March 15, 1999; (ii) International trademark SCHNEIDER S ELECTRIC, registration No. 715396, registered on March 15, 1999; and (iii) European Union trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC, registration No. 001103803, registered on September 9, 2005. The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names which include the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC such as <schneiderelectric.com>. The disputed domain name <schneiderupsdy.com> was registered on October 9, 2019. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it resolves to a website offering products, including uninterruptible power supply (“UPS”) products, and prominently displaying the Complainant’s SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC logo trademark on the homepage, without any indication or disclaimer of affiliation with the Complainant. The website’s “About Us” section instead refers to an entity identified as Xuanyi Power Supply Technology Co., Ltd., based in Shanghai, as a provider of power supply products and related services across multiple industries. When the Panel independently visited the website pursuant to its general powers articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, some of the other pages of the website also appear to suggest that the Respondent is, or is at least affiliated with, a Schneider-branded UPS power supply company located in West Kingston, Rhode Island, United States of America, thereby likely referring to the Complainant’s own operations, as the Complainant has a major facility located in West Kingston, Rhode Island. 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 a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name incorporates the distinctive element “schneider” of its SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademark, and that the omission of the term “electric” together with the addition of the terms “ups” and “dy” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further asserts that the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” is to be disregarded for the purposes of this assessment. page 3 The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant submits that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark, that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark and thereby misleading Internet users and potentially collecting personal information from the Complainant's customers. The Complainant asserts that such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of its SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademark, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant at the time of registration. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, which constitutes evidence of bad faith under the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint and amended Complaint were filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceedings be English for several reasons, including the fact that English is widely used in international relations, that the disputed domain name is composed of Roman characters rather than Chinese script, and that requiring translation into Chinese would impose an undue burden on the Complainant in terms of cost and delay. The Respondent did not comment on the Complainant’s request for the language of the proceedings and did not submit any Response. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceedings shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 3.1, section 1.7. page 4 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name incorporates its dominant element. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “ups” and “dy”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 that 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 3.1, 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. Based on the evidence provided, the Panel notes that the Respondent is not licensed by the Complainant in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that there are no elements in this case that point to the Respondent use of, or any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, upon review of the facts and evidence submitted in this case, the Panel considers that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a website offering products, including uninterruptible power supply (“UPS”) products, while prominently displaying the Complainant’s SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademark and logo. The Panel also notes that the website at the disputed domain name contains no clear, prominent disclaimer regarding the absence of a relationship between the Parties, but instead suggests a commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the foregoing elements illustrate that the Respondent is not acting as a good faith provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name, see also the requirements set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith page 5 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, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC trademarks and that the Respondent offers (at least partially) overlapping and competing products in the same industry as the Complainant, even displaying the Complainant’s trademark on the homepage at the disputed domain name and suggesting a connection with the Complainant. The Panel also notes that the Complainant’s trademarks predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by several decades, with the Complainant’s abovementioned trademark registrations dating back to 1999. This means that even a cursory Internet or trademark search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have revealed the Complainant’s longstanding rights in the SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC marks, the Complainant’s intensive use of these marks in the power management industry, and its international renown. In the Panel’s view, the above elements clearly indicate bad faith on the part of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. Taking into account the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, and the composition of the disputed domain name itself, the Panel accepts that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location. This is direct evidence of bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). 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 <schneiderupsdy.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Deanna Wong Wai Man Sole Panelist Date: April 15, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.