Westmore · UDRP DecisionValeo-tech-assist.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <valeo-tech-assist.com> to Valeo. It found the domain confusingly similar to the VALEO mark because it incorporated the mark in full and added only the descriptive words “tech” and “assist.” The Complainants established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was found under paragraph 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent used the domain to attract Internet users to a pornographic website, most likely for commercial gain, by creating confusion with the distinctive VALEO mark and the Complainants’ related domain names.
The timeline behind valeo-tech-assist.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates application of paragraph 4(b)(iv) where a domain combines a distinctive mark with descriptive service-related wording and diverts users to pornographic content. The close resemblance to the Complainants’ existing valeo-techassist domain portfolio strengthened the inference that the registration targeted the Complainants rather than reflecting an independently selected phrase.
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 and Valeo Service v. wangcong Case No. D2021-2168 1. The Parties The Complainants are Valeo, France (the “First Complainant”) and valeo Service, France (the “Second Complainant”), represented by Tmark Conseils, France. The Respondent is wangcong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <valeo-tech-assist.com> is registered with Alibaba.com Singapore E-Commerce Private Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint 1 was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 7, 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 Complainants on July 31, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on August 3, 2021. 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 August 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 9, 2021. The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 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 First Complainant, Valeo, is a French registered company since incorporation in 1955 and is an automotive supplier and partner to automakers worldwide in relation to smart mobility, with a particular focus on intuitive driving and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Second Complainant, Valeo Service, is a subsidiary of the First Complainant and provides after-market services. The First Complainant, or its group companies own various trade mark registrations worldwide for the VALEO mark, including French trade mark registration number 1336045 registered on December 23, 1985. The Second Complainant owns various domain names, including <valeo-techassist.fr>, <valeo-techassist.info>, <valeo-techassist.net> and <valeo-techassist.org>. The Complainants’ main website is at “www.valeo.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on May 30, 2021 and resolves to a pornographic website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants submit that they own registered trade mark rights for the mark incorporating the word “valeo” as set out above. They say that the VALEO mark is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name which renders it confusingly similar to the Complainants’ VALEO registerd trade mark. They add that the expression that follows it, “-tech-assist” consists of two common and descriptive words in the English language which do not distinguish the disputed domain name such as to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainants note that the trade marks, company names and domain names “Valeo” and “Valeo Service” have been used on a worldwide basis for many years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. They say that the VALEO mark is distinctive and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known under the “Valeo” or “Valeo-Tech-Assist” marks and no legitimate reason why it should incorporate the VALEO mark into the disputed domain name. They submit that using the disputed domain name, incorporating the VALEO mark, to resolve to a pornographic website is not a bona fide or legitimate use of their distinctive and well-reputed mark. The Complainants note that they have never licensed or authorised the Respondent’s use of their VALEO mark and that the Respondent’s registration and use of the VALEO mark in the disputed domain name is for the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainants’ VALEO mark. Therefore, say the Complainants, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As far as registration in bad faith is concerned, the Complainants submit that considering the history of use by the Complainants of the names “Valeo” and “Valeo-Tech-Assist” as company names, trade marks, service marks, domain names worldwide and the substantial reputation attaching to their marks and also noting that a simple Google search for “Valeo” would have brought up as a first result links to the Complainants’ websites, there is no chance of the disputed domain name having been registered by the Respondent by co-incidence. The Complainants submit that the disputed domain name resolves to a pornographic website and that links at the bottom of the web page re-direct Internet users through other domain names to other websites that also feature the same pornographic material. The Complainants say that this clearly demonstrates that the Respondent registered a lot of different domain names in order to display the adult content of its website in as many places as possible. The use of the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a pornographic website is, say the Complainants, evidence of use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainants have demonstrated that they own or have the right to use registered trade mark rights in the VALEO mark and in particular that the First Complainant owns French trade mark registration 1336045 registered on December 23, 1985. The Complainants’ VALEO mark is wholly incorporated into the disputed domain name which renders it confusingly similar to the Complainants’ VALEO registered trade mark. The expression “-tech-assist” follows the VALEO mark in the disputed domain name. It consists of two common and descriptive English words which do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complaint therefore succeeds under this element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainants have submitted that their trade marks, company names and domain names incorporating the term “Valeo” have been used on a worldwide basis for many years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. They maintain that the VALEO mark is distinctive and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known under the “Valeo” or “Valeo-Tech-Assist” marks and no legitimate reason why the Respondent should incorporate the VALEO mark into the disputed domain name. The Complainants note that they have never licensed or authorised the Respondent’s use of their VALEO mark. The Complainants have submitted that using the disputed domain name, incorporating the VALEO mark, to resolve to a pornographic website is not a bona fide or legitimate use of their distinctive and well-reputed mark and that the registration and use of the VALEO mark in the disputed domain name is for the purpose of taking advantage of the Complainants’ VALEO mark. The Panel finds that the Complainants have made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. For this reason and as discussed under Part C below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The VALEO mark was registered in France in 1985 long before the registration of the disputed domain name in May 2021. The VALEO mark is very distinctive and the words “tech assist” in the disputed domain name are descriptive and give Internet users the likely perception that it belongs to the VALEO family of marks and domain names. This is even more the case considering that the Second Complainant owns the domain names <valeo-techassist.fr>, <valeo-techassist.info>, <valeo-techassist.net> and <valeo-techassist.org>. In these circumstances and considering the web presence of the Complainants, it seems extremely unlikely that the Respondent, based in China, chose the disputed domain name incorporating the VALEO mark independently and without knowledge of the Complainants’ mark and business. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a website or location or of a product or service on the website amounts to evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent is clearly using the disputed domain name containing the VALEO mark to confuse and intentionally attract Internet users to its own website at which it displays pornographic material. The site features various links, videos and also a notice “advertising for rent” and is therefore most likely for the Respondent’s commercial gain. As a consequence, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are fulfilled and is evidence of both registration and use in bad faith. As a result, the Complaint also succeeds under this element 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 <valeo-tech-assist.com> be transferred to the First Complainant, Valeo. Alistair Payne Sole Panelist Date: October 6, 2021 1 The Complaint originally included two domain names, one of which was removed from the current proceeding through the amended Complaint submitted to the Center on August 3, 2021. On August 5, 2021, the Center notified the Parties and Registrar of withdrawal of the removed domain name.
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around valeo-tech-assist.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.