Alstom v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2025-0730

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Alstom v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2025-0730

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 <alstomfr.com> is registered with Metaregistrar BV (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 21,
2025. On February 24, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 25, 2025, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 26,
2025, 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

February 28, 2025.

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”).

1 The Respondent appears to have used the name of the Complainant 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 However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case.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.

to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was March 24, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2025.

The Center appointed Christiane Féral-Schuhl as the sole panelist in this matter on April 2, 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 a French company founded in 1928 and is a global leader in the world of transport infrastructure employing around 84 000 people in more than 60 countries.

The Complainant is the owner of several registered trademarks including the word ALSTOM to promote its activities and products and services (the “ALSTOM Trademarks”):

- the French wordmark ALSTOM No. 98727759 registered on April 10, 1998, and duly renewed for products
and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42;
- the European union wordmark ALSTOM No. 948729 registered on August 8, 2001, and duly renewed for

products and services in 6 ,7 ,9 ,11 ,12, 16, 19 ,24, 35 ,36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42;

- the United States of America semifigurative mark
and duly renewed for products in class 12. No. 85507365 registered on November 6, 2012,

The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names comprising of the ALSTOM Trademarks such as <alstom.com> registered on January 20, 2000.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 26, 2024, and is inactive.

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 its prior ALSTOM Trademarks since the disputed domain name wholly and identically reproduces them. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant’s prior trademarks notably since the letters “fr” which are descriptive since they correspond to the country code for France which may lead web users to believe that the disputed domain name is an official website displaying information about the Complainant in France.

Then, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
disputed domain name. The Complainant highlights that despite the contact details provided during the
registration which are false as they are similar to that of the Complainant, the disputed domain name was not
registered by the Complainant. The Complainant underlines that since the disputed domain name is
inactive, the Respondent has not made use or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with

a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Finally, the Complainant asserts the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that it was registered long after its ALSTOM Trademarks became well known. The

page 3

Complainant underlines the Respondent is trying to hide its real identity and registered the disputed domain name under false contact details while purporting to be an entity affiliated to the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is trying to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s huge reputation by operating under a false denomination which is likely to make third parties believe that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant underlines the Respondent has not responded to its contact attempts and that the disputed domain name is inactive which is another evidence of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 entirety of the mark is reproduced 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.

Although the addition of other terms here, the letters “fr” corresponding to the country code for France 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.

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 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.

page 4

Indeed, it appears the Complainant has never authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Rather, noting also the addition of the letters “fr” in the disputed domain name which corresponds to the country code for France,

it appears most likely that such details were specifically chosen to falsely suggest an affiliation with the name.

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 registered the disputed domain name well after the registration of the Complainant’s ALSTOM Trademarks. The Panel noted the ALSTOM Trademarks are well known; therefore, there is a high chance the Respondent deliberately targeted the Complainant when

registering the disputed domain name. This is further demonstrated by the information provided by the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name which includes the name of the Complainant .

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 reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, 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.

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 <alstomfr.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Christiane Féral-Schuhl/
Christiane Féral-Schuhl
Sole Panelist
Date: April 9, 2025