ENGIE v 69Host Hosting

WIPO Case No. D2025-3434

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ENGIE v. 69Host Hosting

Case No. D2025-3434

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ENGIE, France, represented by Ebrand France, France.

The Respondent is 69Host Hosting, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <engieinfo.com> is registered with Global Domain Group LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 26, 2025.

On August 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On August 27, 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, Global Domain Group Privacy

Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the

Complainant on August 27, 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 August 27, 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 August 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph

5, the due date for Response was September 18, 2025. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s

default on September 24, 2025. The Respondent sent email communications to the Center on September

24, 2025 and September 25, 2025.
The Center appointed David-Irving Tayer as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 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, ENGIE, is a French international company dealing in energy transition services and

distribution of electricity, natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energies.

The Complainant was founded in 2015 as result of the merger between Gaz de France, founded in 1946,

and Suez, founded in 1858.

The Complainant claims that the ENGIE Group had 96,454 employees at the end of December 2022 with a

turnover of EUR 93.9 billions in 2022 and that the ENGIE Group is established in 31 countries and looks

after 190,000 B2B customers and EUR 22.5 million in B2C energy supply and service contracts.

The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademark ENGIE in several jurisdictions, including

the following:

- International Trademark Registration No. 1282374 ENGIE (figurative), registered on July 28, 2015, in

classes 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 45; and

- European Union Trademark Registration No. 014337133 ENGIE, registered on February 20, 2016, in

classes 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 45.

Also, the Complainant owns many domain names which include the trademark ENGIE, such as

<engie.com>, registered on September 30, 2003, which directs to the Complainant’s official website, and

<particuliers-engie.com>, registered on February 25, 2016.

The disputed domain name <engieinfo.com> was registered on July 1, 2025.

The disputed domain name was directing to a site reproducing the trademarks and logos of the Complainant.

According to a screenshot provided in the Complaint, the disputed domain name was displaying a fake form

for requesting the reshipment of a registered letter from ENGIE.

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 According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified

in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case.

Firstly, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the

trademark registrations of the Complainant.

Secondly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the

disputed domain name.
Thirdly, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad

faith. In particular, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name previously was displaying a

fake form requesting the reshipment of a registered letter from ENGIE with the reproduction of the

Complainant's trademarks, logos and graphic charter

B. Respondent

The Respondent did formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent sent informal email

communications on September 24, 2025, and September 25, 2025 stating that the “domain has been

inactive and disabled since 01/09/2025 at 02:56 UTC. Therefore, no harmful activity can currently occur

through this domain”.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with

respect to each disputed domain name:

(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 has been registered and is being used in bad

faith.

The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not by

itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views

on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

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 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, “info” 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 well established that a gTLD does not generally affect the assessment of a domain name for the purpose

of determining identity or confusingly similarity.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <engieinfo.com> is confusingly similar to the Mark.

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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity as a clear attempt of phishing or

pharming, impersonation which can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO

Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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 Complainant is a well-known energy company that has long been operating in the market;
−	the disputed domain name was registered on July 1, 2025; and
−	the disputed domain name resolved to a site displaying a fake form requesting the reshipment of a

registered letter from ENGIE with the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademarks, logos and graphic

charter

Thus, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its ENGIE trademark, as reflected in the copying

of the Complainant’s trademark and logo and the background photo from the Complainant’s website.

The evidence also indicates that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to

attract, for commercial gain, users to the website at the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of

confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, logo and website, in order to induce users to enter their

personal data in the login form. Such use constitutes bad faith.

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 <engieinfo.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/David-Irving Tayer/

David-Irving Tayer

Sole Panelist

Date: October 13, 2025