ALSTOM v yu xin

WIPO Case No. D2025-0398

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ALSTOM v. yu xin

Case No. D2025-0398

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is yu xin, Canada.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <alstomcanada.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 January 31, 2025. On February 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 3, 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 (alstomcanada.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5, 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 6, 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Rebecca Slater as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 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 limited liability company, created in 1928. It is a global leader in power generation and transmission and rail infrastructure. The Complainant has 80,000 employees in over 63 countries. Relevant to this Complaint, the Complainant has been present in Canada for over 80 years and has a long history in the Canadian rail industry. It has also been present in the United States (“US”) for over 170 years and has actively contributed to the development of urban transport in the US. For example, the Complainant built the first high-speed train in the US.

The Complainant has a portfolio of registrations for the ALSTOM trade mark, including Canadian Trade Mark
Registration No. TMA562412 for ALSTOM word mark (registered May 23, 2002), Canadian Trade Mark
Registration No. TMA585660 for ALSTOM figurative mark (registered July 21, 2003), US Trade Mark
Registration No. 4570546 for ALSTOM word mark (registered July 22, 2014), and US Trade Mark

Registration No. 2898433 for ALSTOM figurative mark (registered November 2, 2004), (the “Trade Mark”).

The Complainant also holds a large portfolio of domain names containing the Trade Mark, including
<alstom.com> (registered January 20, 1998).

The Respondent is an individual apparently located in Canada. The Respondent did not submit a response, and, consequently, little information is known about the Respondent.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 15, 2025.

The website at the disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page, which features the disputed domain name in large text and subscript stating “We’re under construction. Please check back for an update soon.”

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 the Trade Mark. It consists of the entirety of the

Trade Mark followed by the country name “Canada”. The name “Canada” will be perceived by Internet users as referring to the country in which the Complainant is based, and its activities are carried out.

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

Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant or its group of companies. The Respondent has not been
authorized, licensed, or permitted by the Complainant to register or use a domain name incorporating the
Trade Mark. The Respondent has not applied for or obtained any trade mark registrations related to the

Trade Mark.

- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.

Considering the well-known character of the Trade Mark, it is “virtually impossible” that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s activities at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s existing domain name portfolio.

page 3

The Respondent has provided minimal contact information in order to avoid being contacted by rights
holders. Further, the registrant information provided by the Respondent appears to be false. The
registration of the dispute domain name appears to be part of a wider cybersquatting scheme involving
domain name registrations in Australia and the United Kingdom. These other domain names share the same

structure, have the same Registrar, and are also registered in the name of fake companies.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the
Policy have been satisfied, namely:

1. the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

2.        the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

3.        the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements is on the Complainant.

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 trade mark 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 trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, the country name “Canada”) may bear on assessment of the
second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of term does not prevent a finding of confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trade 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

page 4

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 Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trade Mark and there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain

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.

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.

The Panel finds it highly unlikely that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge of the the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s goal in registering and using the disputed domain name appears to be to attract Internet users for taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s well-known Trade Mark. This amounts to “opportunistic bad faith” in violation of the Policy.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) 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: (a) the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and the composition of the disputed domain name, and (b) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, 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 <alstomcanada.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Rebecca Slater/
Rebecca Slater
Sole Panelist
Date: March 18, 2025