About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Alstom v. Wayne Weeks

Case No. D2013-2029

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Alstom of Levallois-Perret, France, represented by Lynde & Associes, France.

The Respondent is Wayne Weeks of Decatur, Georgia, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <alstomqc.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 26, 2013. On November 26, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 2, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 22, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 23, 2013.

The Center appointed Halvor Manshaus as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2014. 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 1928, with its head offices in Levallois-Perret, France. With a total sales volume of over EUR 20 billion in 2012/13, and with over 93,000 employees, the Complainant is one of the world’s leading company within the power generation and rail infrastructure sector. The Complainant has a considerable presence in the United States, where equipment produced by the Complainant can be found in roughly 50% of all power plants and in 1 of 5 United States subway systems.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks across the world, including International Trademark Registration No. 706292 (ALSTOM), registered on August 28, 1998; Community Trademark Registration No. 000948729 (ALSTOM), registered on August 8, 2001; and United States Trademark Application No. 85250501 (ALSTOM), filed on February 24, 2011.

In addition, the Complainant owns several domain names containing the mark ALSTOM.

The Respondent is Wayne Weeks of Georgia, United States. The disputed domain name <alstomqc.com> was registered on May 2, 2012.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant holds that the disputed domain name <alstomqc.com> is confusingly similar to various trademarks belonging to the Complainant. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's distinctive and well-known mark ALSTOM in full, and only differs from the said mark through the addition of the suffix “qc”. The addition of the said suffix is not at all sufficient to avoid a confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark ALSTOM and the disputed domain name, as the mark ALSTOM is the dominant part of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, nor has the Respondent given any authorization, licenses or permissions to the Respondent with respect to registering or using the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent – who is a private individual – is not commonly known under the names “Alstom” or “Alstomqc”; nor does the Respondent use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the website corresponding to the disputed domain name is a so-called parking page containing pay-per-click links, and includes a link to a website where one can purchase the disputed domain name.

Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent, through the registration and use of the disputed domain name, intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain – meaning that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. At the time of registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent must undoubtedly have had knowledge of the Complainant’s mark ALSTOM, as a Google search with the key words “Alstom” or “Alstomqc” would have yielded results relating to the Complainant’s name, activities and products. Finally, the Complainant holds that the incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name demonstrates an obvious intent to misleadingly divert Internet consumers to the website corresponding to the disputed domain name, see ALSTOM v. STOCKMARKET DOMAINS, WIPO Case No. D2008-1542.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the presented evidence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully demonstrated its rights to the mark ALSTOM.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark ALSTOM in full, and only differs from the said mark by the inclusion of the suffix “qc”. It is stated in a number of previous UDRP decisions that the addition of a generic suffix such as “qc” is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark belonging to a complainant. Reference is made to Alstom v. Daniel Bailey, WIPO Case D2010-1150; Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. Rojeen Rayaneh, WIPO Case No. D2004-0488; Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Kimi DeLuca, WIPO Case No. D2007-0252; and Siemens AG v. Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft, WIPO Case No. D2011-1163.

There is no doubt that ALSTOM is the dominating element in the disputed domain name, and the Panel finds that the addition of “qc” is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademark ALSTOM.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has informed that the Respondent has not been granted any authorization, license or permission to register and use the disputed domain name. There is no affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent, who is a private individual, nor has the Panel found any evidence showing that the Respondent owns prior trademark rights or proprietary rights to the mark ALSTOM.

The Respondent cannot claim any bona fide offering of goods or services, or any legitimate use of the mark ALSTOM. The website corresponding to the disputed domain name is solely a parking page which contains pay-per-click ads, as well as a link to a website where Internet users can purchase the disputed domain name.

It follows from previous UDRP decisions that it is sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, and if a respondent fails to rebut a complainant’s prima facie case, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied this element of the Policy, cf. the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1. The presented evidence and circumstances referred to by the Complainant is, in the Panel’s view, sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.

It is, in the Panel’s view, unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s mark ALSTOM at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. A simple web search with the keywords “Alstom” or “Alstomqc” would have clearly shown that the name and mark ALSTOM is being used by the Complainant.

On the contrary, it is likely that the disputed domain name has been deliberately chosen by the Respondent in order to attract Internet users to the website corresponding to the disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s mark and the Respondent’s website – thus leading to potential commercial gain for the Respondent, seeing as the website contains pay-per-click ads.

In addition, the website contains a link entitled “Learn how you can get this domain”. The link refers to a page where one can purchase the disputed domain name. This is further evidence of registration and use in bad faith in this case; see Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. v. Standard Bearer Enterprises Limited, WIPO Case No. D2010-1127 and Mamar, Inc. v. Order Your Domains, WIPO Case No. D2005-1163.

Moreover, the Panel agrees that the mark ALSTOM is both distinctive and famous. The Respondent must thus reasonably have been aware of the mark at the time of registration, which also demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith. Reference is made to Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co, WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.

Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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 <alstomqc.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Halvor Manshaus
Sole Panelist
Date: January 22, 2014

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/