Westmore · UDRP DecisionIranvaleo.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <iranvaleo.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the VALEO trademark because it incorporated VALEO with the geographic term “Iran”; found no rights or legitimate interests because the website used the Complainant’s logo without authorization, did not disclose the parties’ relationship, and carried a high risk of implied affiliation; and found bad-faith registration and use because the Respondent likely knew of Valeo and used the domain to attract Internet users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind iranvaleo.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind iranvaleo.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a domain combining a trademark with a country name can create an impression of an official national website or authorized local operation. The result did not depend on proving that the offered products were counterfeit: unauthorized logo use, failure to disclose the parties’ relationship, use in the trademark owner’s commercial field, and the domain’s implied affiliation were sufficient to defeat legitimate-interest arguments and support bad faith.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Valeo v. Ali Esmaelnejad Case No. D2020-3034 1. The Parties The Complainant is Valeo, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France. The Respondent is Ali Esmaelnejad, Hungary. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <iranvaleo.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba Joker.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 13, 2020. On November 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 16, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 16, 2020, 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 November 20, 2020. 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 December 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. The Center received emails from a third party, on November 17 and 18, 2020, claiming that the Respondent is a hosting customer. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment on December 22, 2020. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 6, 2021. 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 designs innovative solutions for smart mobility, with a particular focus on intuitive driving and reducing CO₂ emissions. The Complainant also provides and distributes spare parts for automakers and independent aftermarket operators. The Complainant’s worldwide sales exceeded 19000 million EUR in both 2018 and 2019. The Complainant has an extensive trademark portfolio and the VALEO trademark is registered in numerous countries in the world such as French trademark registration No. 1624041 registered December 19, 1980. The Complainant also owns many domain names consisting of or including the Complainant’s trademark, for example <valeo.com>. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name was registered on April 2, 2020. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a webpage offering automotive products and using the Complainant’s logo without permission. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations, and argues that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, together with the descriptive word “iran”. The Complainant argues this does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s trademark, but rather increases the likelihood of confusion and association with the Complainant’s business. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, on the website the Respondent, without permission, uses the Complainant’s trademark with the addition “Iran”. The Complainant believes the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s activity and prior trademark rights when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant further argues that the fact that the Domain Name resolves to a website with unauthorized use of the Complainant’s logo and offering automotive products, is further evidence of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark VALEO. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, with the “Iran” added in the front. The addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11 . The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of the Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. The Respondent’s unauthorized use of a reproduction of the Complainant’s logo, is not bona fide. Furthermore, the Panel notes that while it is not clear whether the Respondent is offering genuine goods and services for VALEO automotive parts, the website does not disclose in any event the relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent (see section 2.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ). There is no indication in the case file of evidence of a bona fide use that may point to a legitimate interest for the Respondent within the meaning of the Policy. In addition, the disputed domain name which is composed of the Complainant’s trademark together with the geographical term “iran” carries a high risk of implied affiliation (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 ). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent most likely was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. It is evident from the Complainant’s fame and the fact that the Respondent’s website refers to automotive products. Based on the case file, in particular the fact that the Respondent has made unauthorized use of the Complainant’s logo and not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Domain Name <iranvaleo.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: January 13, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around iranvaleo.com
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 WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.