Westmore · UDRP DecisionAlstom.club
The Panel ordered transfer of <alstom.club>, finding it identical to ALSTOM trademarks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith through passive holding with knowledge of the marks and against a background of prior adverse UDRP decisions involving the Respondent.
The timeline behind alstom.club
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The Panel found registration and use in bad faith because the Respondent knew or should have known of the long-existing ALSTOM marks, passive holding did not preclude bad faith, the undeveloped domain incorporated the marks in their entirety, and numerous prior WIPO decisions had found bad-faith registration by the Respondent.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
Case number CAC-UDRP-101150 Time of filing 2016-01-05 11:58:16 Domain names alstom.club Case administrator Name Lada Válková (Case admin) Complainant Organization ALSTOM S.A. Complainant representative Organization Nameshield (Anne Morin) Respondent Name Cameron Jackson Other Legal Proceedings The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings. Identification Of Rights According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks: International semi-figurative trademark ALSTOM number 706360, registered on 28 August 1998, and International wordmark ALSTOM number 706292, registered on 28 August 1998. Factual Background FACTS ASSERTED BY COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY RESPONDENT: According to the information provided Complainant is a global leader in the world of power generation, power transmission and rail infrastructure. The disputed domain name <alstom.club> is inactive since its registration. The disputed domain name was registered on 9 October 2015. The trademark registration of Complainant has been issued prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. According to Complainant the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as there is no website under the disputed domain name and Respondent is not related in any way with the business of Complainant. According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of Complainant's trademark, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. In addition, Respondent is already known in several UDRP proceedings as a registrant of domain names which includes well known trademarks; see Alstom v. Cameron Jackson, WIPO Case No. D2007-1022 (<alstom-belgium.info>, <alstom-china.info>, <alstom-europe.info>, <alstom-fiji.info>, <alstom-france.info>, <alstom-global.info>, <alstom-honduras.info>, <alstom-newzealand.info>, <alstom-perth.info>, <alstom-switzerland.info> and <alstoms.info>). Parties Contentions NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. Rights The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy). No Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). Bad Faith The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii)of the Policy). Procedural Factors The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision. Principal Reasons for the Decision In the opinion of the Panel the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's trademarks [Policy, Par. 4 (a)(1)]. Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark or the principal part thereof in its entirety. The International trademarks of Complainant predate by many years the registration date of the disputed domain name. In the opinion of the Panel Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademarks or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its marks. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent. Respondent did not submit any response. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name [Policy, Par. 4 (a)(11)]. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith [Policy, Par. 4(b)(iv)]. The trademarks of Complainant have been existing for a long time. Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name included Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel notes that there is currently no website at the disputed domain name. However, such passive holding of the website does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith. The Panel also notes that Respondent's undeveloped use of the website at the disputed domain name which incorporates Complainant’s trademarks in its entirety indicates that Respondent possibly registered the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademarks of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location. Finally, there is a large number of UDRP decisions by WIPO panelists in which bad faith registration of domain names by Respondent has been established, in particular Alstom v. Cameron Jackson, WIPO Case No. D2007-1022 (<alstom-belgium.info>, <alstom-china.info>, <alstom-europe.info>, <alstom-fiji.info>, <alstom-france.info>, <alstom-global.info>, <alstom-honduras.info>, <alstom-newzealand.info>, <alstom-perth.info>, <alstom-switzerland.info> and <alstoms.info>). For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is Accepted and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be ALSTOM.CLUB: Transferred PANELLISTS Name Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan Date of Panel Decision 2016-02-05 Publish the Decision
Source of record: CAC . Reproduced for research; CAC is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around alstom.club
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on CAC-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.