Aramco-ae.net + 6 more domains

The timeline behind aramco-ae.net

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 Saudi Arabian Oil Co. v. Allfollow Mercy, Richard Krauss, Carl Atiyeh, Steve wills Kalfman, Adnoc, Melissa Norris, Storage Tanks, Danielle WHITE Case No. D2026-0283 1. The Parties The Complainant is Saudi Arabian Oil Co., Saudi Arabia, represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., United States of America (“United States”). The Respondents are Allfollow Mercy, United States, Richard Krauss, Spain, Carl Atiyeh, United States, Steve wills Kalfman, Adnoc, United States, Melissa Norris, United States, Storage Tanks, United States and Danielle WHITE, United Arab Emirates. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <aramco-ae.net> and <procurementsaramco.com> are registered with eNom, LLC. The disputed domain names <aramco-contracting.com> and <vendors-aramcoemirates.com> are registered with INWX GmbH & Co. KG. The disputed domain name <aramco-sourcing.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. The disputed domain name <aramcotrading-uae.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC. The disputed domain name <aramco-vendor.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (eNom, LLC, INWX GmbH & Co. KG, Name.com, Inc., Wild West Domains, LLC and NameSilo, LLC are collectively referred to as the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 23, 2026. On January 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 26 and 27, 2026, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 29, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, 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 page 2 and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 1, 2026. 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 February 2, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 22, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2026. The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on March 10, 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 The Complainant was founded in 1933 and is one of the largest oil companies in the world. The Complainant is the owner of the following, amongst other, trademark registrations: - Saudi Arabia trademark registration No. 143306351 for the word mark ARAMCO, registered on October 2, 2013, successively renewed, in class 1; - European Union trademark registration No. 012676045 for the word mark ARAMCO, filed on March 10, 2014, registered on August 15, 2014, successively renewed, in classes 1, 16 and 42; and - United States trademark registration No. 7029421 for the word mark ARAMCO, registered on April 18, 2023, in classes 9, 35, 36 and 41. The disputed domain names were registered on and presently are used in connection with: 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. Disputed Domain Name Registration Date Present Use <aramco-ae.net> November 10, 2025 No active webpage <aramco-contracting.com> October 17, 2025 Redirects to “www.aramco.com” <aramco-sourcing.com> September 2, 2025 No active webpage <aramcotrading-uae.com> May 20, 2025 No active webpage <aramco-vendor.com> November 4, 2025 No active webpage <procurementsaramco.com> October 26, 2025 No active webpage <vendors- aramcoemirates.com> September 13, 2025 Redirects to “www.aramco.com” page 3 The Complainant requests the consolidation of the named Respondents arguing that the disputed domain names are under common control in view of the following circumstances: (1) all of the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s ARAMCO trademark with the addition of a geographical term and/or other terms associated with the Complainant, namely, “ae”, “contracting”, “sourcing”, “uae”, “vendor”, “procurements”, “vendors” and “emirates” and hyphens; (2) with the exception of <aramcotrading-uae.com>, all of the remaining disputed domain names were registered within a twelve-week period between September 2, 2025, and November 26, 2025; and (3) all of the disputed domain names are being used to perpetuate the same fraudulent phishing scheme whereby email addresses associated with the disputed domain names impersonate the Complainant’s personnel and solicit money and sensitive documents from vendors seeking partnership opportunities with the Complainant (Annex 2 to the Complaint), such as: - Emails from both <aramco-sourcing.com> and <aramco-vendor.com> are sent by “Director of Commercial Operations and Strategic Procurement”; - Emails from both <vendors-aramcoemirates.com> and <aramco-contracting.com> are sent by “Procurement & Logistic Supervisor”; - Emails from <vendors-aramcoemirates.com> and <aramco-contracting.com> attach the same “Vendor Registration Agreement” requiring deposits be paid to “Aramco Procurements” and - Emails from <procurementsaramco.com> and <aramco-ae.net> both reference “Expression of Interest (EOI) packages and Seller’s Questionnaire”. The Complainant asserts to have continuously used the ARAMCO trademark in connection with its oil production and related goods and services since at least as early as 1944, being ARAMCO an acronym for “Arabian American Oil Company,” the Complainant’s former tradename. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARAMCO trademark, given that they fully incorporate it, with the addition of geographical or descriptive terms what does not mitigate confusion or distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s trademark. Additionally, the Complainant points out that the Respondents have been using the disputed domain names in connection with associated email addresses to impersonate the Complainant in a highly sophisticated and elaborate vendor fraud and phishing scheme, inviting recipients to submit various sensitive business documents, as well as a “EOI Mandatory Deposit Payment” (Annex 2 to the Complaint), what does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the Respondents are not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor have they been authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s ARAMCO trademark. Given the Complainant’s well-established reputation, the Complainant contends that it is evident that the Respondents deliberately registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith to impersonate the Complainant. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Matter - Consolidation of 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, page 4 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that (1) all of the disputed domain names share a similar naming pattern, incorporating the Complainant’s ARAMCO trademark, hyphens and a geographical term and/or a dictionary term associated with the Complainant, namely, “ae”, “trading”, “contracting”, “sourcing”, “uae”, “vendor”, “procurements”, “vendors” and “emirates”; (2) six of the seven disputed domain names were registered within a short period of time between September and November 2025; and (3) all of the disputed domain names are being used to perpetuate the same fraudulent phishing scheme whereby email addresses associated with the disputed domain names impersonate the Complainant’s personnel and solicit money and sensitive documents from vendors seeking partnership opportunities with the Complainant (Annex 2 to the Complaint). As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. This Panel is satisfied, in view of the evidence submitted and on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names are indeed subject to a common control and that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. 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. 6.2. Substantive Matter Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth the following three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforementioned three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names. In accordance with paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. 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 3.1, section 1.7. page 5 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the 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 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (“ae”, “contracting”, “sourcing”, “trading”, “uae”, “vendor”, “procurements”, “vendors” and “emirates” and hyphens) 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 3.1, 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 that 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 3.1, 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 Respondent, in not responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. This entitles the Panel to draw any such inferences from such default as it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. Nevertheless, the burden of proof is still on the Complainant to make a prima facie case against the Respondent. In that sense, the Complainant indeed states that the Respondent is not associated or affiliated with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant granted any rights to Respondent to use the ARAMCO trademark in the disputed domain names. Also, the lack of evidence as to whether the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or the absence of any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain names, corroborates with the indication of the absence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. The Panel concludes that the Respondent has indeed not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has used the disputed domain names, which incorporate the Complainant’s trademark entirely with the terms that may be seen as referring to the Complainant’s origin or business to impersonate the Complainant and to deceive unsuspecting individuals by running a fraudulent vendor scheme. page 6 Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names. 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. The registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith can be found in the present case in view of the following circumstances: a) the use of the disputed domain names in connection with emails impersonating the Complainant seeking to deceive, defraud, and scam unsuspecting individuals purportedly offering procurement or vendor accreditation, while reproducing the Complainant’s logo and corporate identity; b) the composition of the disputed domain names targeting the Complainant; and c) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain names. For the reasons as stated above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of 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 names <aramco-ae.net>, <aramco-contracting.com>, <aramco-sourcing.com>, <aramcotrading-uae.com>, <aramco-vendor.com>, <procurementsaramco.com> and <vendors-aramcoemirates.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: March 24, 2026

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