Abbac800m.com, Abbplcdcs.com, Abbsupplier.com

The timeline behind abbac800m.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. 成都阳光熹禾电气有限公司 (cheng du yang guang xi he dian qi you xian gong si), 漳州风云电气设备有限公司 (zhang zhou feng yun dian qi she bei you xian gong si) Case No. D2025-4925 1. The Parties The Complainant is ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., Switzerland, represented by Taylor Wessing Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB, Germany. The Respondents are 成都阳光熹禾电气有限公司 (cheng du yang guang xi he dian qi you xian gong si), China; and 漳州风云电气设备有限公司 (zhang zhou feng yun dian qi she bei you xian gong si), China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <abbac800m.com>, <abbplcdcs.com> and <abbsupplier.com> are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 26, 2025. On November 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 27, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (UNKOWN) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 15, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint in English on December 16, 2025. On December 15, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On December 16, 2025, the Complainant confirmed its request that English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. page 2 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 Respondents in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on December 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 12, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on January 13, 2026. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 21, 2026. 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 A. Complainant The Complainant is a company incorporated in Switzerland and is part of the ABB Group, a group of companies operating in over 100 countries worldwide in the field of power and automation technology. The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the ABB trade mark (the “Trade Mark”), including International registration No. 781902, with a registration date of March 27, 2002. B. Respondents The Respondents are reportedly companies incorporated in China. C. The Disputed Domain Names The disputed domain name <abbac800m.com> was registered on February 11, 2025. The disputed domain names <abbplcdcs.com> and <abbsupplier.com> were registered on November 4, 2024. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Names The disputed domain names were previously resolved to nearly identical English language websites promoting the business of the Chinese company Hainan Jinlin Electromechanical Equipment Co., Ltd, purportedly offering the Complainant’s products under the Trade Mark, as well as products of a large number of the Complainant’s competitors, including, for example, Schneider, Honeywell, and Alstom (the “Websites”). At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain names no longer resolve to any active websites. 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 names. page 3 Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith; and that the Respondents’ primary motive in relation to the registration and use of the disputed domain names was to capitalize on, or otherwise take advantage of, the Complainant's rights in the Trade Mark, for commercial gain. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issues A. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes in particular that the disputed domain names were previously resolved to nearly identical Websites in relation to the same company, and were registered with the same Registrar. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. B. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that the Websites are in the English language. The Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. page 4 In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the Trade Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “ac800m”, “plcdcs”, and “supplier”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. 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 recognized 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The use of the disputed domain names to resolve to commercial Websites featuring the Complainant’s Trade Mark and allegedly offering for sale both the Complainant’s products as well as those of the Complainant’s direct competitors, cannot confer rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent, particularly as the disputed domain names carry a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant (per the Complainant, page 5 “AC800m” stands for a controller product family of the Complainant, and “plc” and “dcs”, stand for “programmable logic controllers” and “distributed control systems”); and the Websites to which the disputed domain names resolve bear no disclaimer as to their lack of association with the Complainant. 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 finds that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant and its Trade Mark in registering and using the disputed domain names, for commercial gain, in respect of the Websites, which apparently offered for sale products of both the Complainant under the Trade Mark, without authorization, as well as products of the Complainant’s direct competitors, and without any disclaimer noting the Respondent’s lack of association with the Complainant. 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 names <abbac800m.com>, <abbplcdcs.com> and <abbsupplier.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Sebastian M.W. Hughes/ Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Date: February 4, 2026

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