Veoliaa.com

The timeline behind veoliaa.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Veolia Environnement SA v. Karim Palomino, Palo autos Case No. D2025-4068 1. The Parties The Complainant is Veolia Environnement SA, France, represented internally and by IP Twins, France. The Respondent is Karim Palomino, Palo autos, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <veoliaa.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 6, 2025. On October 6, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 6, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 7, 2025, 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 October 15, 2025. 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 October 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 5, 2025. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on October 15, 2025. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on November 6, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Andrea Cappai as the sole panelist in this matter on November 19, 2025. 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 Veolia Environnement SA, a French company headquartered in Paris, active in the water, waste, and energy management sectors. It operates globally through a large number of production plants, treatment facilities, and energy networks, and provides services to millions of customers and public authorities worldwide. The Complainant also maintains a substantial online presence, including the domain name <veolia.com>, registered on December 30, 2002, which it uses to provide corporate and service- related information. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for VEOLIA, including: VEOLIA – International Registration No. 814678 – registered on September 11, 2003. VEOLIA – United States Registration No. 3543738 – registered on December 9, 2008. VEOLIA – International Registration No. 910325 – registered on March 10, 2006. The disputed domain name <veoliaa.com> was registered on September 25, 2025 with the Registrar. According to the record, it has been used in connection with the sending of emails purporting to originate from a senior director of the Complainant, with instructions relating to payment of invoices. The disputed domain name itself has resolved to an inactive page. Other than the contact details provided by the Registrar, there is limited information available regarding the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its VEOLIA trademark because it reproduces the mark in its entirety with only the addition of an extra letter, and that the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, noting that it has granted no authorisation for the use of the VEOLIA mark, that the Respondent is not commonly known by that name, and that the disputed domain name has been used exclusively for deceptive purposes. In particular, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent configured the disputed domain name for email communications that impersonated one of the Complainant’s senior executives, to issue apparently unauthorised payment instructions. According to the Complainant, these emails mimicked the Complainant’s internal communications and were crafted to induce recipients to transfer funds or disclose sensitive information. The Complainant argues that such impersonation cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As to bad faith, the Complainant submits that the Respondent must have been aware of the VEOLIA trademark when registering the disputed domain name, given its wide visibility and the deliberate replication of the mark, and that the use of the disputed domain name for unauthorised email communications with payment instructions demonstrates an intention to exploit the reputation of the mark to mislead users for page 3 financial gain, falling within the circumstances of bad faith described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant therefore requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on October 15, 2025, indicating the disputed domain name had been deactivated and asked if the proceeding would continue. However, the Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Comparing the Complainant’s mark with the disputed domain name, the Panel notes that the mark is reproduced in its entirety, with only a minor typographical addition. Panels have consistently found that where a complainant’s mark remains clearly recognisable within a domain name, this is sufficient to establish confusing similarity, and that minor variations or typographical alterations do not alter this assessment. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7 and 1.9. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognised that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 There is no indication that the Respondent has been authorised to use the VEOLIA mark, is commonly known by the disputed domain name, or has made preparations to use it for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s mark with only a minor typographical variation. According to the material submitted, the disputed domain name appears to have been configured primarily for email communications imitating the identity of one of the Complainant’s senior executives and conveying what seemed to be instructions relating to the payment of invoices. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, such as phishing, impersonation/passing off, and other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant had secured its trademark rights and after the mark had been used extensively in connection with the Complainant’s global activities. Given the composition of the disputed domain name, which reproduces the VEOLIA mark in full with only a minor typographical addition, the Panel considers it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its mark at the time of registration. In this respect, the Complainant’s mark has been recognised in prior UDRP decisions as enjoying significant reputation, and its inclusion in the disputed domain name appears deliberate rather than coincidental. As to use, the evidence submitted shows that the disputed domain name was configured for sending fraudulent email communications imitating the identity of one of the Complainant’s senior executives. These emails seemed to convey instructions concerning the payment of invoices and appeared formatted in a manner resembling internal corporate correspondence. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, such as phishing, impersonation/passing off, and other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third 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 <veoliaa.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Cappai/ Andrea Cappai Sole Panelist Date: December 10, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.