Westmore · UDRP DecisionArmtecherp.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <armtecherp.com> to Arm Limited. It found the domain confusingly similar to the ARM trademark because it wholly incorporated ARM with the activity-related terms “tech” and “erp.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the domain was used for a login page that credibly appeared to collect usernames, email addresses, and passwords. The domain’s composition, the reputation of ARM, and the attempted impersonation supported findings of bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind armtecherp.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 armtecherp.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how a domain combining a well-established mark with terms related to the mark owner’s business can strengthen findings across all three UDRP elements when the domain is used for an apparent credential-collection page. It also shows that a respondent cannot rely merely on a registrar-listed organization name when that name is unexplained and serious impersonation allegations remain unrebutted.
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 Arm Limited v. Sathishkumar K, Armtech Computer Services Pvt Ltd Case No. D2021-1002 1. The Parties The Complainant is Arm Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Quinn IP Law, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Sathishkumar K, Armtech Computer Services Pvt Ltd, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <armtecherp.com> is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 1, 2021. On April 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 1, 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. On April 13, 2021, the Center sent an email communication to the parties inviting the parties to take a certain action to keep the disputed domain name active as it had already expired. The Center also sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 15, 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 17, 2021. On May 2, 2021, the Complainant made a supplemental filing to the Complaint. The Registrar confirmed that the disputed domain name had been renewed by the Complainant on May 18, 2020. 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 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 9, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 18, 2021. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 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. The Panel in its sole discretion has decided to admit the Complainant’s supplemental filing of May 2, 2021. 4. Factual Background The Complainant designs sophisticated electronic products, supplies software, and provides software and consultancy services since 1990. The Complainant has sold over 180 billion products under its brand, which is globally recognized. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom trademark ARM (Reg. No. 00002000006, registered on January 29, 1999), the United States trademark ARM (Reg. No. 2332930, registered on March 21, 2000) and the Singapore trademark ARM (Reg. No. 40201505972U, registered on November 18, 2014). The Complainant further holds the domain name <arm.com> under which the official website of the Complainant is available. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through its <arm.com> domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on March 12, 2020 and resolved to a website asking Internet users to enter their login information (username or email and password). In the meantime, the website has been deactivated. Before initiating the present proceeding, the Complainant made some effort to resolve the matter amicably. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contact attempt. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Based on the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the trademark. The ARM trademark is wholly reproduced in the disputed domain name. A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name ( Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662 ). This includes terms like “tech” and “erp”, both related to the Complainant’s activities. The Complainant has thus fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has credibly alleged that the Respondent used the disputed domain name for collecting user data, including usernames, email addresses and passwords. This cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use. Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name, wholly incorporating the Complainant’s trademark and the terms “tech” and “erp”, cannot constitute fair use in these circumstances as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1. The Panel does note that the Respondent has listed “Armtech Computer Services Pvt Ltd” as its organization name with the Registrar, but given that the Respondent has been made aware of these proceedings, but has not submitted a formal response to the serious information harvesting allegations made against it, the Panel is unable to ascertain any possible relation of such name to the purported Respondent organization. Therefore, the Panel infers that the inclusion of such name could indicate that it was done as a pretext to give the false impression of authenticity. Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case, including the composition of the disputed domain name and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark along with the terms “tech” and “erp” creates a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s ARM trademark and the disputed domain name, noting that the added terms “tech” and “erp” are related to the Complainant’s activities. The evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant supports a finding that the Respondent was engaged in an attempt to pass itself off as the Complainant by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website and to attract Internet users to its website for its own commercial gain. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma , WIPO Case No. D2018-2466 ). The fact that the website at the disputed domain name has been deactivated in the meantime does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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 disputed domain name <armtecherp.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Tobias Zuberbühler Sole Panelist Date: June 3, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around armtecherp.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.