WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Alstom v. Name redacted

Case No. D2021-2584

1. The Parties

Complainant is Alstom, France, represented by Lynde & Associes, France.

Respondent is [Name Redacted].1

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Disputed Domain Name <alstom-france.com> is registered with Tucows, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 9, 2021. On August 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 10, 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 Complainant on August 17, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 20, 2021.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 21, 2021.

The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 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

A. Complainant

Complainant Alstom is a company registered in France. It was formed in 1928 and is in the business of transport infrastructure.

Complainant is well known provider of power generation installations, power transmission and rail infrastructure, employing 36,000 professionals in more than 60 countries.

Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark ALSTOM in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including the United Kingdom (No. UK00900948729 Registered August 8, 2001), United States of America (No. 4,570,546 Registered July 22, 2014) and the European Union (No. 948.729 Registered August 8, 2001). Complainant also owns multiple registrations throughout the world, including United Kingdom (No. UK00900948802 Registered June 6, 2002) for the design mark

logo

Complainant also owns the domain name <alstom.com>, which was registered in 1998.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered August 4, 2021. The associated webpages are wholesale copies of Complainant’s authentic website, including Complainant’s trademarks, graphics and images. There is one significant difference. Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name as the “Contact Us” email address.

Respondent gave a false name when registering the Disputed Domain Name, as Respondent provided the name of Complainant’s president, who did not in fact register the Disputed Domain Name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALSTOM trademark and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its ALSTOM trademark, as evidenced by its several trademark registrations identified above. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the ALSTOM mark. The addition of “-france” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity caused by the wholesale incorporation of Complainant’s mark, which is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 (addition of geographic term does not avoid confusion).

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has established a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, which Respondent has not rebutted.

Respondent has proffered no excuse for its copying of Complainant’s website and the apparent, indeed manifest purpose, is to impersonate Complainant for reasons that cannot be legitimate. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 (impersonation).

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Respondent’s wholesale copying of Complainant’s website demonstrates Respondent’s awareness of Complainant. So too, the addition of “-france” evidences Respondent’s awareness of Complainant and a deliberate attempt to exploit consumer awareness of Complainant. These facts support an inference of bad faith registration.

Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name as “contact us” is bad faith use. Respondent’s naming, falsely, of course, of Complainant’s President as the owner of the Disputed Doman Name is further evidence of bad faith use. WIPO Overview 3.0 sections 3.2.1 and 3.6. The only explanation is that Respondent is laying the foundation for a phishing or other fraudulent scheme. WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.4 (phishing as bad faith use).

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 <alstom-france.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Lawrence K. Nodine
Sole Panelist
Date: October 11, 2021


1 The Panel decided to redact the name of the named Respondent, adopting the criterion of the panel in Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788 (“The Panel has decided that no purpose is to be served by including the named Respondent in this decision, and has therefore redacted its name from the caption and body of this decision. The Panel has, however, attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain names that includes the named Respondent, and has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel has further directed the Center, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published based on exceptional circumstances”).