DECISION

 

Altec Industries, Inc. v. Sohaib EL MIMOUNI

Claim Number: FA2506002163520

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Altec Industries, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by David E. Malick of Morris Wade Richardson, Esq., Alabama, USA. Respondent is Sohaib EL MIMOUNI ("Respondent"), represented by Igor Motsnyi of Motsnyi IP (dba Motsnyi Legal), Serbia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <altec.ai> (the "Domain Name"), registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 30, 2025; Forum received payment on June 30, 2025.

 

On July 2, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <altec.ai> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On July 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 23, 2025, 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@altec.ai. Also on July 3, 2025, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 21, 2025.

 

On July 23, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider, as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

The Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant, Altec Industries, Inc., alleges that its registered "ALTEC" trade mark (the "Mark") was developed as an acrostic from "Alabama Truck Equipment Company", and that the Respondent registered the Domain Name, <altec.ai> in bad faith with the intent to offer the Domain Name for sale for US$ 45,000.00 or to the highest bidder and not a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial, or fair, use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent describes himself as an entrepreneur from Morocco who recently became involved in the domain name investment business, buying and selling brandable or descriptive domain names.  Before having any notice of the dispute, the Respondent alleges, he has been using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services and has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name as a domain name investor who did not target the Complainant.

 

The Respondent submits in evidence his signed declaration reciting "under the penalty of perjury or any other applicable laws for making false statements" (in part):

 

"I chose the [Domain Name] because, in my opinion, it may be appealing to many potential buyers and is brandable, it has no specific meaning known to me, it consists of only 5 (five) letters, it can be considered as an acronym for "All Technology", "All Technological" or "All Technical", and it had no association with any particular business or person known to me on the date of registration".

 

The Respondent submits that he currently owns over 100 domain names, including 27 ".ai" domain names, including among them: <alicorn.vc>; <ascendia.ai>;<solvia.ai>;<kod.ai>;<sagacity.ai>;<superdoctor.ai>; and <navia.ai>, and that he has never been involved in any UDRP or any other domain name dispute before.

 

FINDINGS

1.       The Complainant registered its "ALTEC" Mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") on May 21, 1968.

2.       The Respondent registered the Domain Name on January 28, 2024.

3.       The Complainant failed to provide any evidence that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with a primary purpose to sell it to the Complainant or to any of its competitors.

4.       The Respondent submits in evidence his signed declaration "under the penalty of perjury or any other applicable laws for making false statements", the substance of which the Panel finds is relevant and material, but legally deficient in its execution, as the Respondent's signature is not witnessed, nor is the instrument's authenticity attested by a judicial or other officer authorized by law to administer oaths or attest to the lawful execution of documents (who would typically also separately sign and seal the instrument) in any jurisdiction.

5.       The Respondent submits in evidence substantial, credible proof of trademark rights in the word mark "ALTEC" registered to third parties, as well as the use of "ALTEC" on the Internet by third parties in connection with a wide variety of disparate commercial purposes and in social media – all unrelated to the Complainant or the Complainant's business.

6.       All evidence provided by Complainant only confirms that the Domain Name was and is still offered for sale to the general public in connection with the Respondent's domain name investment and trading business.

7.       The Panel finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and is engaged in the bona fide use thereof in connection with the Respondent's domain name investment and trading business.

8.       The Complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith or show any infringing or cybersquatting intent on the part of the Respondent.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

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

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

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Respondent "does not question Complainant's trademark rights and that the [Domain Name] is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's US trademarks".

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1, states:

 

"… [G]enerally speaking, panels have accepted that aggregating and

holding domain names (usually for resale) consisting of acronyms, dictionary words, or common phrases can be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the UDRP".

 

Here, the Respondent submits that he chose the Domain Name for use in connection with his domain name investment and trading business, because it is short (5-letters) and attractive to many potential buyers, it can be considered as an acronym for a number of expressions, including "All Technology" (Altec) or "All Technological" (Altec) and it has no association with one particular company/business/person, and that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant prior to commencement of this UDRP proceeding.

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the second element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons explained above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith or show any infringing or cybersquatting intent on the part of the Respondent.

 

The Panel finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the third element at Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. 

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <altec.ai> Domain Name shall REMAIN WITH the Respondent.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated:  August 4, 2025