ALSTOM v. claude williams
Claim Number: FA2304002039083
Complainant is ALSTOM (“Complainant”), represented by Stéphane Lynde of LYNDE & ASSOCIES, France. Respondent is claude williams (“Respondent”), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alstomgroup.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 6, 2023; Forum received payment on April 6, 2023.
On April 6, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <alstomgroup.us> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 7, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 2023, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@alstomgroup.us. Also on April 7, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 3, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a world leader in the provision of power generation, power transmission and rail infrastructure, with 36,000 employes working in more than 60 countries.
Complainant holds a registration for the ALSTOM trademark and service mark, which is on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) as Registry No. 4,570,546, registered on July 22, 2014.
Complainant and its affiliated companies are commonly known in the global marketplace as the Alstom Group.
Complainant has done business since November of 2000 at the web address <alstomgroup.com>, and, as well, since June of 2017 at the web address <alstomgroup.net>, and, further, since November of 2022 at the web address <alstomgroup.co>.
Respondent registered the domain name <alstomgroup.us> on March 30, 2023.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALSTOM mark.
Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its ALSTOM mark in a domain name.
Respondent does not use the domain name for either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Instead, Respondent uses the domain name to host a parked webpage and to engage in a fraudulent phishing scheme by which it impersonates Complainant’s chief executive officer in e-mail messages delivered via an address based on the domain name to unsuspecting Internet users, which messages offer putative but nonexistent employment opportunities while seeking disclosure of information about the recipients’ bank accounts.
Respondent lacks both rights to and legitimate interests in the domain name.
Respondent’s use of the domain name disrupts Complainant’s business.
In registering the domain name, Respondent used a privacy service to hide its identity and provide false contact information.
Respondent has both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a trademark and service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the same domain name was registered and is now being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
ii. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered or is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
By reason of its registration of the ALSTOM trademark and service mark with a national trademark authority, the USPTO, Complainant has shown that it has rights in that mark sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that it demonstrates standing to pursue its claim against Respondent in this proceeding. See, for example, Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum December 28, 2018) (finding that a complainant’s registration of its mark with the USPTO sufficiently confirmed its rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Turning to the central question posed by Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), we conclude from a review of the record that Respondent’s <alstomgroup.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALSTOM mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the country code Top Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.us” and the generic term “group,” which is both a direct reference to Complainant’s form of business organization and an attempt misleadingly to mimic Complainant’s online addresses incorporating the term “group.” Many panels have found that the addition of a ccTLD or other TLD to the mark of another in forming a domain name is irrelevant in determining the question of identity or confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See, for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Assoc. v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018):
A TLD (whether a gTLD, … or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.
See also Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding that adding to the mark of another a gTLD and the generic term “finance,” which described a UDRP complainant’s financial services business conducted under that mark, did not sufficiently distinguish the resulting domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must make out a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights to and legitimate interests in the <alstomgroup.us> domain name whereupon the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See, for example, Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum August 18, 2006) (finding that a UDRP complainant must make a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to that respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests). See also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum September 25, 2006):
Complainant must … make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, … the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.
Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie showing under this head of the Policy. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint therefore permits us to infer that Respondent does not have rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See, for example, Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398 (WIPO December 21, 2000) (finding that a respondent’s failure to respond to a UDRP complaint allows a presumption that a complainant’s allegations are true unless they are clearly contradicted by the evidence). Nonetheless, we will examine the record before us, in light of the considerations set out in Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)-(iv), to determine whether there is in it any basis for concluding that Respondent has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name that are cognizable under the Policy.
We begin by noting that there is nothing in the record before us suggesting that Respondent is the owner or beneficiary of a trademark or service mark that is identical to the <alstomgroup.us> domain name. We conclude, therefore, that Respondent has no claim of rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See, for example, Pepsico, Inc. v. Becky, FA 117014 (Forum September 3, 2002), finding that, because there was no evidence showing that a respondent owned a trademark or service mark reflecting a specific domain name, it could not lay claim to rights or legitimate interests in that domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).
We next observe that Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that Respondent makes no active use of the <alstomgroup.us> domain name other than to use it to engage in a fraudulent scheme by which it impersonates Complainant’s chief executive officer in e-mail messages delivered to Internet users via an address based on the domain name, which messages offer nonexistent employment opportunities while seeking disclosure of information about the recipients’ bank accounts. Such a fraudulent scheme is commonly called “phishing.” It should go without saying that this use of the domain name is by no means a “bona fide offering of goods or services” within the contemplation of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See, for example, Chevron Intel. Prop. LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Ltd, FA 1661076 (Forum March 15, 2016), finding that a respondent had failed to provide evidence of a bona fide offering of goods or services of a challenged domain where:
Respondent is using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant. Complainant presents evidence showing that the email address that Respondent has created is used to solicit information and money on false pretenses.
Complainant also asserts, again without objection from Respondent, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <alstomgroup.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its ALSTOM mark in a domain name. This uncontested
allegation, without more, requires the conclusion that Respondent has neither rights to nor legitimate interests in the domain name under the provisions of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Finally, under this head of the Policy, the facts recited above with respect to Respondent’s failure to demonstrate that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the compass of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) also make clear that it cannot claim that it has rights to or interests in the domain name on grounds that it is “making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use” of it as provided in Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See again Chevron Intel. Prop. LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Ltd, FA 1661076 (Forum March 15, 2016).
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the proof requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The facts before us showing that Respondent uses the <alstomgroup.us> domain name to operate a fraudulent phishing scheme allow of no other conclusion than that Respondent both registered and now uses the domain name in bad faith as contemplated in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See, for example, Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that a respondent’s use of a domain name in an e-mail address to pass itself off as a complainant-mark holder in a phishing scheme evidenced bad faith in both the registration and use of that domain name). See also Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA1629459 (Forum August 14, 2015) (finding that a respondent’s operation of an email phishing scheme indicated bad faith registration and use of a contested domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where that respondent employed the domain name to send emails to Internet users advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with a complainant-mark holder in hopes of persuading them to disclose personal information in the process).
The Panel thus finds that Complainant has met its obligations of proof under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant having established all three elements required to be proven under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that the relief requested must be, and it is hereby, GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alstomgroup.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: May 17, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page