Westmore · UDRP DecisionAlstomtd.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <alstomtd.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to ALSTOM because it incorporated the mark in its entirety and the addition of “td” did not prevent recognition of the mark. Respondent failed to rebut Complainant’s prima facie case on rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was established from Respondent’s likely awareness of the well-known, longstanding ALSTOM mark, its use of copied third-party website content, and its incomplete contact information and failure to respond to Complainant’s communications.
The timeline behind alstomtd.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 alstomtd.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how wholesale incorporation of a distinctive mark, combined with copied third-party website content and opaque registrant information, can support findings across all three UDRP elements. The decision is particularly useful for its alternative bad-faith analysis: unauthorized copying supported bad faith if Respondent lacked a CSSC relationship, while an actual relationship with the alleged competitor would support intentional commercial confusion.
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 ALSTOM v. LLC Gname Case No. D2021-2383 1. The Parties Complainant is ALSTOM, France, represented by Lynde & Associes, France. Respondent is LLC Gname, Singapore. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <alstomtd.com> (hereinafter “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PSI-USA, Inc. dba Domain Robot (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2021. On July 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 26, 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 Complainant on July 28, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 29, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 30, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 31, 2021. The Center appointed Lawrence K. Nodine as the sole panelist in this matter on September 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. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a company registered in France. It was formed in 1928 and is in the business of transport infrastructure. Complainant is a well-known provider of power generation installations, power transmission and rail infrastructure, employing 36,000 professionals in more than 60 countries. Complainant owns trademark registrations for the mark ALSTOM in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including the United States of America (No. 4,570,546 registered July 22, 2014) and the European Union (No. 948,729 registered August 8, 2001). Complainant also owns multiple registrations throughout the world, including Singapore (Singaporean Trademark Registration Nos. T9810228F, T9810241C and T9810231F) for the design mark Complainant also owns the domain name <alstom.com>, which it registered in 1998. The Disputed Domain Name was registered September 4, 2020. Respondent’s name is LLC Gname. The information provided by the Registrar is incomplete and, at best, confusing. The WhoIs record indicated that the registrant’s identification was “REDACTED FOR PRIVACY” giving only the address “Singapore, SG.” Complainant made multiple requests to the Registrar for more contact information, but received no response. After the UDRP complaint was filed, the Registrar gave more information, but the information was still not complete: fname: LLC lname: Gname Registrant country: SG Address: Singapore 534818 Phone: +852-5935-4640 Email address: […]@aol.com The physical address is insufficient to locate Respondent and the names lack detail needed to locate a specific entity. The webpage was inoperable for several months after it was registered, but later reverted to an active page for “CSSC Science & Technology Co., Ltd”, an entity which, according to the site, specialized in “deep military-civilian integration” and “marine power.” There is a “history” statement on the page which recites that it is owned by “Blizzard 4bx Entertainment.” Complainant has not been able to identify a company by that name. However, Complainant has determined that there is genuine website for CSSC Science & Technology Co., Ltd at “www.cssckj.com”, and that the content on the Disputed Domain Name was copied from the <cssckj.com> website. Without elaboration, Complainant asserts that CSSC Science & Technology Co., Ltd is a competitor. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ALSTOM trademark and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further contends that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its ALSTOM trademark, as evidenced by its several trademark registrations identified above. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the ALSTOM mark. The addition of “td” does not dispel the confusion caused by the wholesale incorporation of Complainant’s mark, which is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has established a prima facie case Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, which Respondent has not rebutted. Respondent has not explained, much less proved, that it has any relationship whatsoever to CSSC Science & Technology Co., Ltd whose graphics were copied and pasted into the webpages associated with the Disputed Domain Name. And even if Respondent has some relationship to CSSC Science & Technology Co., Ltd, no explanation is offered for why it would have a right to reference Complainant’s trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant has offered credible evidence that it is sufficiently well known worldwide to support an inference that Respondent was more likely than not aware of Complainant’s rights in the ALSTOM trademark, which were first registered more than 20 years before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. The Panel also finds bad faith use of the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has copied the content of CSSC Science & Technology Co., Ltd’s webpage and pasted it into the Disputed Domain Name website. As the record includes no evidence that Respondent has any relationship to CSSC, it was bad faith to misappropriate another’s web content and associate it with Complainant’s trademark. If Respondent is in fact associated with CSSC, an entity that Complainant alleges to be a competitor, then Respondent has intentionally sought to confuse Internet users for commercial gain. This is, of course, bad faith . Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). Furthermore, Respondent has given incomplete contact information and ignored Complainant’s repeated efforts to communicate. This too is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 3.6. 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 <alstomtd.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lawrence K. Nodine Sole Panelist Date: October 11, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around alstomtd.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.