Geeaero.space

The timeline behind geeaero.space

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 General Electric Company v. Mason Oliver Case No. D2026-0547 1. The Parties Complainant is General Electric Company, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, United States. Respondent is Mason Oliver, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <geeaero.space> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 10, 2026. On February 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 10, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (“Privacy User #8c15256c, See PrivacyGuardian.org”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 11, 2026, 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 February 12, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 12, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 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 Complainant is a multinational business incorporated the state of New York and headquartered in Evendale, Ohio, United States. Complainant, formed in 1892, manufactures, distributes and sells a wide variety of goods and services across various industries, including aerospace, energy, healthcare, lighting, appliances, renewable energy, etc. Complainant owns and operates numerous registered trademarks throughout the world, including: - United States registered trademark number 35089 for the GE word and design mark, registered on September 18, 1900; - Chinese registered trademark number 3045961 for the GE word mark, registered on February 21, 2005; and - United Arab Emirates trademark number AE/029547 for the GE word and design mark, registered on April 21, 2002. Complainant also owns and operates the domain name <ge.com>, registered in 1986. Complainant’s affiliate, GE AEROSPACE, which was launched in 2024 as an independent, publicly traded company, is a multinational aerospace technology and industrial company with approximately 57,000 employees operating in approximately 170 countries worldwide. GE Aerospace provides jet and turboprop engines, components, and integrated systems for commercial, military, business, and general aerospace crafts. Complainant owns and operates numerous registered trademarks for GE AEROSPACE, including: - European Union registered trademark number 018919099 for the GE AEROSPACE word and design mark, registered on March 27, 2024; - United Kingdom registered trademark number 00003950957 for the GE AEROPSACE word and design mark, registered on December 1, 2023; and - Chinese registered trademark number 73805172 for the GE AEROSPACE mark, registered on March 14, 2024. Complainant also owns and operates the domain name <geaerospace.com>, registered on January 9, 2012. The GE and GE AEROSPACE marks will be referred to collectively as the GE AEROSPACE trademarks. The Domain Name was registered on February 2, 2026 and redirected to a parked page featuring “geeaero.space” and pay-per-click (PPC) links with banners such as “Aircraft Structures Simulation Software”, ”Aerospace Engineering Design”, “Emergency Cash Assistance for Free”, and has MX records configured to facilitate sending of emails impersonating Complainant’s employees to seek payments from Complainant’s legitimate business partners. More particularly, Respondent used the Domain Name to send emails to accounts receivable representatives of Complainant’s business partners regarding assistance with a “statement of account” as part of a fraudulent scheme that could have resulted in the fraudulent transfer of Complainant’s financial information and/or funds to Respondent. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. Notably, Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations and rights for GE AEROSPACE and that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, which is a typosquatted variant where a letter “E” is added between “GE” and “AEROSPACE” and a period “.” is added between “AERO” and the generic Top- Level Domain (“gTLD”) ”space”, with the intention to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well- known GE AEROSPACE services. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name which includes Complainant’s trademark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the Domain Name in furtherance of an illegal scheme to impersonate employees of Complainant and fraudulently seek payments from Complainant’s legitimate business partner. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) states that failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true. Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the GE AEROSPACE trademark, as noted above. The Domain Name was registered over 100 years after the registration of Complainant’s U.S. federally registered GE trademark and certainly after registration of Complainant’s GE AEROSPACE trademark. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the GE AEROSPACE trademark. page 4 With Complainant’s rights in the GE AEROSPACE trademark established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the gTLD in which it was registered (in this case, “.space”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842. Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s GE AEROSPACE trademark. The GE AEROSPACE trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name. The addition of the letter “e” after “GE” and the addition of a period “.” between the term “aero” and the gTLD “.space”, in the Domain Name <geeaero.space> does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the GE AEROSPACE trademark. See sections 1.8 and 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make a prima facie showing that a respondent possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with relevant evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP. From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and its GE AEROSPACE trademark and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the GE AEROSPACE trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating this trademark. Respondent is also not known to be associated with the GE AEROSPACE trademark and there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. The registration of the Domain Name is an attempt in “typosquatting”, whereby it is clearly intended to confuse Internet users into believing the Domain Name belongs to Complainant. See e.g., Debevoise & Plimpton LLP v. Keyword Marketing, Inc. / Web Advertising, Corp., WIPO Case No. D2007-1679 (explaining “typosquatting” is “a form of cybersquatting in which a respondent registers and uses a domain name in order to take advantage of typographical errors made by Internet users seeking the complainant’s commercial website”). In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the record shows that while the Domain Name directed to a parked page, it was used to engage in illegal activity, namely, to impersonate Complainant’s employees and fraudulently seek payments from Complainant’s legitimate business partners. Specifically, Respondent used the Domain Name to send emails to accounts receivable representatives of Complainant’s business partners regarding assistance with a “statement of account” as part of a fraudulent scheme. UDRP panels have consistently held that use of a domain name for illegal activity — such as email phishing, impersonation, or passing off — can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. See also Eli Lilly and Company v. Anilx Cols, WIPO Case No. D2024-0440 (finding that an imposter website that is potentially fraudulent and “would never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent.”). Furthermore, Respondent used a proxy service or selected a registrar with default proxy services to mask its identity, and Respondent has used false underlying contact information to register the Domain Name. The Panel finds that such use of a false name and contact information of Complainant’s employee’s name, page 5 even if the first and last names are reversed when the true name is recognizable, constitutes identity theft and does not confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie showing that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a respondent, namely: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds that Complainant has provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the GE AEROSPACE trademark long predate the registration of the Domain Name. Complainant is also well established and known; indeed, the record shows that Complainant’s GE AEROSPACE trademark and related services are widely known and recognized for purposes of the Policy. Therefore, and also noting the use analysis below, Respondent was clearly aware of the GE AEROSPACE trademark when it registered the Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; and BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007. Moreover, the Domain Name’s inclusion of Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the letter “e” and use of a period “.” as discussed above, is clearly an attempt in “typosquatting”, whereby the Domain Name is clearly intended to confuse Internet users into believing the Domain Name belongs to Complainant, and is considered to be bad faith registration. Such adoption of Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name is a common tactic for phishing schemes, where individuals seek to pass themselves off as a prominent company in the hopes of seeking confidential information and, ultimately, transfers of funds from current or potential clients of those companies. See Eli Lilly and Company page 6 v. Lilly Careers, WIPO Case No. D2016-0641; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Longo, WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 (“[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith”). As noted above, the record shows that Respondent had used the Domain Name to engage in illegal activity, namely the impersonation of Complainant’s employees in an attempt to seek assistance with a “statement of account” from Complainant’s legitimate business partner. UDRP panels have consistently held that a respondent’s use of a domain name to trade off goodwill in a complainant’s well-known trademark and impersonate complainant, as here, constitutes bad faith. See Philip Morris Products S.A. v. homn mohmoodi, WIPO Case No. D2022-4158. Moreover, such use of the Domain Name may potentially result in tarnishing Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. Finally, the Panel also notes the failure of Respondent to submit a response, Respondent’s use of a proxy service or selection of a registrar with default proxy services to mask its identity, and Respondent’s use of false underlying contact information (with a street address for an luxury apartment complex located in downtown Phoenix owned by an unrelated property management company, an unrelated email address and phone number) to register the Domain Name. The Panel thus considers such factors as strong further evidence of Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. In the present circumstances, considering the reputation of the GE AEROSPACE trademark, and the fraudulent use of the Domain Name, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 Domain Name <geeaero.space> be transferred to Complainant. /Kimberley Chen Nobles/ Kimberley Chen Nobles Sole Panelist Date: March 23, 2026

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