Keolismhi.com

The timeline behind keolismhi.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 KEOLIS SA and Keolis MHI Rail Management and Operation LLC v. Mohsin shah, Chilly Life Ltd. Case No. D2026-0332 1. The Parties The Complainants are KEOLIS SA, France, and Keolis MHI Rail Management and Operation LLC (“Keolis MHI”), United Arab Emirates, represented by Plasseraud IP, France. The Respondent is Mohsin shah, Chilly Life Ltd., Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <keolismhi.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 27, 2026. On January 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 2026, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on February 2, 2026, 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 February 4, 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 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on March 3, 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 Keolis SA is a French public limited company that operates public transportation systems across the world. It is the owner of the KEOLIS trade mark, registered, inter alia, as European Union trade mark number 2413607 for transportation services on May 19, 2003. The KEOLIS trade mark is well known in its field. Keolis MHI is a subsidiary composed of Keolis, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Engineering (MHI) and Mitsubishi Corporation (MC), that has been awarded a 9 year contract by Dubai’s Roads & Transport Authority with a possible 6-year extension, to operate and maintain Dubai’s metro and to operate the tram network from September 8, 2021. The disputed domain name registered by the Respondent on October 4, 2024, does not point to an active web site, but was formerly pointed to a website providing information about Keolis MHI using “Keolis MHI” prominently as a masthead. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainants contend that: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ KEOLIS trademark since it integrates the trademark KEOLIS in its entirety as its dominant element, together with the element “mhi”, which does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark in any significant way. Moreover, the element “mhi”, associated with the trademark KEOLIS, contributes to the creation of a likelihood of confusion for Internet users, who will believe that the disputed domain name is owned and/or administered by the Complainants, as it brings the disputed domain name closer to the company name of the subsidiary Keolis MHI. The generic top level domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorised by the Complainants. The disputed domain name carries a high risk of affiliation with the Complainants and was used for a site with information about Keolis MHI using “Keolis MHI” as a masthead. This was confusing and was not a bona fide offering of services. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith to confuse Internet users for commercial gain. The disputed domain name has been set up with MX records for email. The Complainants are concerned that the disputed domain name may be used for phishing. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 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 Complainants’ trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainants have 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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “mhi” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name 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 Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ 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. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorised by the Complainants. The disputed domain name incorporating the trade mark and the element “mhi” included in the name of the second Complainant Keolis MHI carries a risk of affiliation with the Complainants and was used for a site with information about Keolis MHI using “Keolis MHI” as a masthead. This was likely to confuse Internet users into believing that the site was operated or endorsed by the Complainants and as such was not a bona fide offering of services. The Respondent therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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 used the disputed domain name for a site with information about Keolis MHI using “Keolis MHI” as a masthead evidencing that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainants, their mark, business and services. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 Complainants have 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 <keolismhi.com> be transferred to the Complainants. /Dawn Osborne/ Dawn Osborne Sole Panelist Date: March 6, 2026

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