Abbamerica.com

The timeline behind abbamerica.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 ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. Jenny Larry Case No. D2026-0605 1. The Parties The Complainant is ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., Switzerland, represented by Taylor Wessing LLP, Germany. The Respondent is Jenny Larry, United States of America (“United States” or “US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <abbamerica.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 February 12, 2026. On February 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 14, 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 (Unknown / 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 February 16, 2026, 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 amendment to the Complaint on February 16, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for a Response was March 9, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response by that date. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Jane Lambert as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 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, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., is part of the ABB Group, a global group of companies in the power generation and distribution industries and automation. The group’s products include high, medium and low-voltage equipment and industrial automation devices. It also offers a comprehensive range of services relating to those areas. The group employs over 100,000 persons in over 100 countries who contribute billions of US dollars of revenue every year. The Complainant registered the following mark (“the Trade Mark”) with the US Patent and Trademark Office on November 23, 2004, for goods and services in classes 7, 8, 9, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, and 42 under registration number 2904097: The Complainant holds around 3,000 similar trade mark registrations around the world. The ABB mark is protected both as a word mark and as a device mark. Particulars of the Complainant’s other registrations are annexed to the Complaint in Annex 4. The Complainant has featured in numerous rankings of the world’s largest and highest-turnover corporations. In 2018, it was named among the top 10 companies in Fortune magazine’s “Change the World” list in recognition of its efforts to speed up the adoption of clean-energy electric transportation. This list highlights global companies whose innovative initiatives make a significant positive social impact around the world. The Complainant has also been included on the Global 500 list, which ranks the world’s largest companies, for 24 consecutive years. This year, it was listed as one of the 750 largest industrial companies in Switzerland. Because of its sales, marketing and awards, the Trade Mark is associated throughout the world with the Complainant and none other in the fields of power generation and distribution and automation. The Complainant markets its products and services through websites at “global.abb/group/en” and “new.abb.com”. The Complainant uses the Trade Mark on its website in connection with the marketing and supply of those goods and services. It has inserted a screenshot from its “global.abb” website at paragraph 12 of the Complaint. The Complainant has inserted several screenshots from the website at the disputed domain name in the Complaint. Each of those screenshots displays the Trade Mark prominently. A page headed “ABOUT ABB AMERICA” purports to describe the Complainant group’s activities in the US. Another page states the physical address of the Complainant’s corporate headquarters in the US. The disputed domain name was registered on September 11, 2025. The name of the registrant was redacted in the Whois database on nic.com and the registrant’s address was stated to be in Reykjavik, Iceland. The name of the Respondent with an address in the US was disclosed by the Registrar. No other information about the identity or whereabouts of the Respondent appears in the Complaint or its Annexes. page 3 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. In respect of the first element, the Complainant notes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name consisting of the Trade Mark and the descriptive term “america”. The combination gives the impression that the disputed domain name indicates the Complainant’s presence in the US. That impression is reinforced by the reproduction of the Trade Mark on various pages of the Respondent’s website. The Complainant refers to the decision in Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v. ma ki, done stell, Gr Ave 553, WIPO Case No. D2025-1412, in which the panel confirmed that not only the contested domain name is to be considered when assessing its similarity to the mark on which the complainant relies, but also the content of the website: “While, as stated in section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, website content is generally disregarded when assessing confusing similarity, it may be considered in close cases to help determine whether a respondent is targeting the complainant’s mark. The Panel agrees with this approach and, consistent with the reasoning in ADDINOL Lube Oil GmbH v. DIGITAL MARKETING, STRABONET, WIPO Case No. D2024-0257 finds it appropriate to take into consideration the content of the websites in this instance. Here, the evidence presented demonstrates that the Respondent’s websites closely emulate the Complainant’s branding, including the use of similar colour schemes and a layout designed to solicit user credentials. These elements reinforce the overall impression that the websites are linked to or endorsed by the Complainant, thereby increasing the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark, as also further discussed under the ‘Registered and Used in Bad Faith’ - section of this decision.” The Complainant contends that the Respondent's website is designed in several ways to lead Internet users to believe that both the website and the disputed domain name originate from the Complainant or are operated by the Complainant. In summary, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name that is similar to the Trade Mark. Both the registration of the disputed domain name and its specific use are intended to cause confusion for Internet users as to its association with the Complainant. As for the second element, the Complainant refers to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy which sets out some of the circumstances in which a respondent may show that it has legitimate rights or interests in a domain name. The Complainant does not comment further on those provisions but there is nothing in the Complaint to suggest that any of them applies to this case. The submission continues that while 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 often-impossible 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. The Complainant points to its extensive use of the Trade Mark and its worldwide reputation, the relatively recent registration of the disputed domain name and the use to which the disputed domain name has been put. It confirms that it has not authorized the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. It states that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way. It observes that the use of the disputed domain name to page 4 misrepresent that the Respondent is the Complainant does not qualify as an offering of services in good faith for the purposes of the Policy. It concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to register and use the disputed domain name. In further support of its conclusion, the Complainant cites the following passage from the decision in ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. pavlo rex, WIPO Case No. D2025-3554 which concerned the domain name <abbeurope.com> (“the <abbeurope.com> case”): “The undated but undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website reproducing both the Complainant's word and figurative trademark mentioned above, and copying the look and feel, pictures and other content such as quotes and addresses from the Complainant’s official website. In the Panel's view, this neither amounts to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (e.g., impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1”. The Complainant says that is exactly the case here. With regard to the third element, the Complainant refers to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy and, in particular, to subparagraphs (iii) and (iv). It submits that the mere registration of a domain name that is similar to a well- known Trade Mark and the reproduction of the Trade Mark on the website shows that the Respondent acted in bad faith. The disputed domain name was clearly registered with the intent of misleading internet users as to the commercial origin of the offers and the website, presumably for commercial gain. The misrepresentation of the Respondent’s website as an official website of the Complainant is further evidence of bad faith. The Complainant relies on a translated passage from the decision in Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v. Yurii Shaldaev, WIPO Case No. D2023-1242 which concerned the domain name <phoenixcontact.store>: “The Administrative Commission finds that Respondent’s web site does not accurately and obviously disclose the relationship between Respondent and Applicant, the trademark owner, and that such content of Respondent’s web site may have misled users by giving the false impression that the site is licensed or otherwise endorsed by Applicant. The disputed domain name is identical to the PHOENIX CONTACT trademark. The identity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark constitutes a risk of affiliation or association with the Complainant. As discussed in the section on rights and legitimate interests, Respondent’s website does not disclose the relationship between Respondent and Complainant, and the content of Respondent’s website may have misled users by giving the false impression that the site is licensed or otherwise endorsed by Complainant. Based on the evidence available, the Administrative Commission finds that the third element of the Policy has been established.” The Complainant quotes another passage from the <abbeurope.com> case: “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. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a 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 the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. In the present case, the Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name: page 5 - the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, and combines it with a term which can easily be linked to the Complainant's business and presence in Europe; - one of the Complainant's trademarks, covering the Respondent's country of residence, predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by more than 30 years; - according to the Complainant's evidence, the Disputed Domain Name referred to a website reproducing both the Complainant's word and figurative trademark mentioned above, and copying the look and feel, pictures and other content from the Complainant's official website. In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.” Finally, the Complainant mentions the decision in ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. zhang tong dao, WIPO Case No. D2025-5134 which concerned the domain names <abbvn.com>, <abbvn.net>, and <abbvn.vip>: “The Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain names, which reproduce the Complainant’s ABB mark together with the term ‘vn’, a common abbreviation for ‘Viet Nam’, and the operation of websites featuring the Complainant’s stylized ABB mark and including false claims that the sites are operated by ‘ABB Vietnam’, indicate the Respondent’s clear awareness of the Complainant and its trade ark rights. Moreover, the Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain names to imitate the Complainant’s affiliate without authorization. Panels have consistently held that the use of a domain name for impersonation constitutes use in bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4). Upon review of the record, the Panel finds that both the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent constitute bad faith under the Policy. Furthermore, the Respondent has established fraudulent websites under the disputed domain names, falsely presenting itself as the Complainant’s affiliate ‘ABB Vietnam’. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.” The Complainant argues that the facts of that case were identical to the current case and that it follows that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The agreement for the registration of the disputed domain name incorporates the following paragraph of the Policy: Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name: (i) is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. page 6 In the administrative proceeding, the Complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7.) The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds the Complainant has established trade mark or service mark rights for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the Trade Mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “america”) may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such a 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 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 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. 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. One of those circumstances is that by using the domain name, a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his or her website or other on-line location, by creating a page 7 likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site or location or of a product or service on the web site or location. The disputed domain name resolves to a website prominently displaying the Trade Mark and attempts to pass itself off as the Complainant’s corporate headquarters in the US. The Panel has already held that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It may be inferred that the Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with the Trade Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of her website in order to attract Internet users to it for commercial gain, particularly noting the composition of the disputed domain name which incorporates the Trade Mark together with the term “America” where the Complainant has its business and considering the Respondent’s use of the Trade Mark and physical address of the Complainant’s corporate headquarters in the US on the website at the disputed domain name. Further or alternatively, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed 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 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 <abbamerica.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Jane Lambert/ Jane Lambert Sole Panelist Date: March 27, 2026

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