Westmore · UDRP DecisionGroupe-engie.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <groupe-engie.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ENGIE trademarks because it incorporated ENGIE in its entirety with only the preceding generic term “groupe” and a hyphen. The Complainant made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which the non-responding Respondent did not rebut. Although the Complainant supplied no evidence supporting its allegations that ENGIE was well known or that the domain had been used for fraudulent emails, the Panel nevertheless found bad-faith registration and use from the circumstances, including the confusing similarity and the absence of any plausible legitimate future active use given the specificity of the Complainant’s activity.
The timeline behind groupe-engie.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 groupe-engie.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that unsupported allegations of trademark fame and fraudulent email activity need not defeat a complaint where the remaining record independently satisfies the Policy. Here, the Panel expressly identified those evidentiary shortcomings but still found bad faith based on the domain’s composition, the Respondent’s lack of explanation, the surrounding circumstances, and the absence of any plausible legitimate future use.
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 ENGIE S.A. v. Fernandes Christophe Case No. D2021-0844 1. The Parties The Complainant is ENGIE S.A., France, self-represented. The Respondent is Fernandes Christophe, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <groupe-engie.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 22, 2021. On March 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 23, 2021, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 12, 2021 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 amendment to the Complaint on April 19, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 April 20, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 10, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 20, 2021. On May 28, 2021, the Center granted the Respondent a five day period ( e.g ., through June 2, 2021) in which to indicate whether it wishes to participate to this proceeding due to an administrative oversight. The Respondent did not reply to the Center’s communication dated May 28, 2021. The Center appointed Louis-Bernard Buchman as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 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 is a French company, the shares of which are listed on the Paris stock exchange, which is a major energy and energy-related services provider and a global reference in low-carbon energy. The Complainant owns several registered trademarks containing the term ENGIE, including European Union trademark no. 14063747 registered on May 15, 2015, European Union trademark no. 14063978 registered on May 15, 2015, European Union trademark no. 14337133 registered on July 3, 2015, International trademark no. 1282374 registered on July 28, 2015 and International trademark no. 1282376 registered on September 10, 2015 (together referred to hereinafter as: “the Mark”). The Complainant owns a large portfolio of domain names, including, inter alia, the <engie.com> domain name. The disputed domain name <groupe-engie.com> was registered on May 28, 2020. The disputed domain name was initially registered in the name of a proxy or GDPR service. The identity of the Respondent was disclosed by the Registrar in response to the Center’s request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges, but has not submitted evidence thereof, that the disputed domain name was used to activate a mail exchange server and sending fraudulent e-mails. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant (i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Mark, in which the Complainant has rights, and is confusingly similar to the Mark insofar as the disputed domain name, <groupe-engie.com>, contains the distinctive element “engie” in its entirety, preceded by the generic word “groupe”, which only enhances the confusing similarity. (ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that it never authorized the Respondent to use the Mark in any manner and that the Respondent has never had any affiliation with the Complainant. (iii) The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the Mark being well known, with a worldwide reputation, the Respondent had knowledge of the Mark when registering the disputed domain name. (iv) The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was used to activate a mail exchange server and sending fraudulent e-mails, and thus contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. (v) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Aspects: Failure to respond Under the Rules, paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a), the effect of a failure to submit a formal response by the Respondent is that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the basis of the Complaint. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, it is the Complainant’s burden to establish that all three of the required criteria for a transfer of the disputed domain name have been met, even in the absence of a formal response. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel is empowered to draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file a formal response as it considers appropriate under the circumstances. In this case, the Panel finds that as a result, the Respondent has failed to rebut any of the reasonable factual assertions that are made and supported by evidence submitted by the Complainant. In particular, by failing to respond, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, from which the Panel might conclude that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, such as making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, as discussed below, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent has acted in bad faith. 6.2. Requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy A. Identical or Confusingly Similar In comparing the Mark with the disputed domain name <groupe-engie.com>, it is evident that the latter consists of the Mark (preceded by the generic term “groupe” and a hyphen), followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. 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 <groupe-engie.com> is confusingly similar to the Mark, which is incorporated in its entirety, save that it is preceded by the term “groupe” and a hyphen, such differences being incapable of dispelling the confusing similarity. Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Although a complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that with regard to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative proposition, requiring information that is primarily, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of a respondent. Thus, the consensus view of UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden of production of evidence to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, as the Panel finds the Complainant has made in this case, based on the facts and arguments set out above. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 . As previously noted, the Respondent offered no reason for selecting the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or uses (or has made bona fide preparations to use) the disputed domain name in a business or otherwise. No information is provided on what rights or legitimate interests the Respondent may have in the disputed domain name. To counter any notion that the Respondent has such rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant has argued that the Respondent (i) has no affiliation with the Complainant and (ii) received no authorization from the Complainant to register or use the disputed domain name. In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has established the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy with respect to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As noted above, the Respondent has failed to provide any exculpatory information or persuasive reasoning that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion to the detriment of the Complainant in registering a domain name confusingly similar to the Mark, which can be considered as “cybersquatting”. It is established in prior UDRP decisions that where the respondent knew or should have known of a trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name, such conduct may be, in certain circumstances, sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Weetabix Limited v. Mr. J. Clarke , WIPO Case No. D2001-0775 . The Complainant alleges that the Mark is well known and that the disputed domain name was used for fraudulent purposes, without however providing any evidence supportive of either contention. Furthermore, prior UDRP panels have held that in certain circumstances, registrants of domain names have an affirmative duty to abstain from registering and using a domain name which is either identical or confusingly similar to a prior trademark held by others and that contravening that duty may constitute bad faith. See Policy, paragraph 2(b); Nike, Inc. v . B. B. de Boer , WIPO Case No. D2000-1397 ; Nuplex Industries Limited v . Nuplex , WIPO Case No. D2007-0078 ; Mobile Communication Service Inc . v . WebReg , RN , WIPO Case No. D2005-1304 ; BOUYGUES v . Chengzhang , Lu Ciagao , WIPO Case No. D2007-1325 ; Media General Communications , Inc . v . Rarenames , WebReg, WIPO Case No. D2006-0964 ; and mV isible Technologies , Inc . v . Navigation Catalyst Systems , Inc . , WIPO Case No. D2007-1141 . Finally, prior UDRP panels have held that bad faith use of a domain name by a respondent may also result from the fact its good faith use is in no way plausible, considering the specificity of the activity (see Audi AG v. Hans Wolf, WIPO Case No. D2001-0148 ). The Panel finds it is indeed not possible to imagine any plausible future active use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate, considering the specificity of the Complainant’s activity. The Panel concludes in the light of all these circumstances that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith, and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also satisfied in this case. 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 <groupe-engie.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Louis-Bernard Buchman Sole Panelist Date: June 11, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around groupe-engie.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.