Alstom v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2025-0636

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Alstom v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2025-0636

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Name Redacted1.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <altomsgroup.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 February 18, 2025. On February 18, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 19, 2025, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 24, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,

1 The Respondent appears to have used the Complainant’s employee’s name when registering the disputed domain name. In light of

the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding and has indicated Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.

page 2

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 24, 2025.

The Center appointed Gökhan Gökçe as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 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 is the French company Alstom founded in 1928. The Complainant is a global leader in the world of transport infrastructures and employs 84,000 professionals in more than 60 countries.

The Complainant holds trademark registrations comprising the word ALSTOM in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, including the following:

- United States of America (“US”) Trademark Registration No. 85507365
6, 2012, in class 12; registered on November

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 948729 ALSTOM registered on August 8, 2001, in classes 6,

7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42;

- International Registration No. 706292 ALSTOM registered on August 28, 1998, in classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9,

11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42;

- International Registration No.706360 registered on August 28, 1998, in classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9,

11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42.

The Complainant is also the registrant of numerous domain names under various generic and country code

Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs” and “ccTLDs”) with the mark ALSTOM, such as:

- <alstom.com> registered since January 20, 1998; and

- <alstomgroup.com> registered since November 14, 2000.

The disputed domain name has been registered since September 25, 2024, and has been inactive.

On October 24, 2024, the Complainant sent a trademark claim to the Registrar to assert their prior rights to
the denomination ALSTOM and requested the Registrar to disclose the registrant information of the disputed
domain name. Upon receipt of the registrant information, On January 17 and 20, 2025, the Complaint sent a
cease-and-desist letter to the Registrant by registered letter and by email to […]@vestas-it.com,
respectively. The email resulted in an error message indicating “l’adresse de courier du destinataire est
incorrecte”, which means “the delivery address is incorrect”. As for the letter sent by registered letter, the

Complainant has not received any response to date.

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.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

In the absence of a formal Response, the discussion and findings will be based upon the contentions in the
Complaint and any reasonable position that can be attributable to the Respondent.

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel will further analyze the potential concurrence of the above circumstances.

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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable 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.

The disputed domain name <altomsgroup.com> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark ALSTOM with a typographical alteration, specifically by moving the letter “s” in the trademark from the third position to the end, forming “altoms”. According to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9, “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element” and an example of such a misspelling is “the inversion of letters and numbers”. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

Although the addition of other term here, “group”, 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.

It is also well accepted that a gTLD, in this case “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.

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

page 4

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 passive holding of the disputed domain name in these circumstances is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. There is no contrary evidence from the Respondent showing that it is making use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

The Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s ALSTOM trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, and in light of the potential identity theft committed by the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name, there is no reason to believe that the Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and the Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “alstom” on its own.

The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions to advance a claim to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The record also shows that the Respondent has engaged in identity theft, in adopting the Complainant’s employee’s name as a domain name registrant.

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, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark as the disputed domain name was registered approximately 27 years after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that it is improbable that the Respondent was not aware of the ALSTOM mark since a quick Internet search would reveal the existence of the ALSTOM mark, and the disputed domain name includes a misspelled version of the mark. Additionally, the evidence provided by the Complainant with respect to the extent of use and global recognition of its ALSTOM mark, a distinctive term created by the Complainant. This, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent knew or should have known of the ALSTOM trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Noting the circumstances of the case, such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

Moreover, the fact that the Respondent used the name of an employee of the Complainant is clear indication that the Respondent had the Complainant’s trademarks in mind when it registered the disputed domain name.

page 5

In addition, the case record shows that the Respondent’s postal address and contact details, as registered with the Registrar, appear to be fake, which further demonstrates bad faith of the Respondent at the time of the registration.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s prior rights when it registered the disputed domain name.

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 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 composition of the disputed

domain name, and the lack of response from the Respondent, 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.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes 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 <altomsgroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Gökhan Gökçe/
Gökhan Gökçe
Sole Panelist
Date: April 14, 2025