Westinghousoutdoorpower.com

The timeline behind westinghousoutdoorpower.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 Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, LLC v. Zhichao Case No. D2026-1001 1. The Parties The Complainant is Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Markmonitor, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Zhichao, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <westinghousoutdoorpower.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 9, 2026. On March 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 11, 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, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 13, 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 amended Complaint on March 16, 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 March 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Petra Pecar as the sole panelist in this matter on April 22, 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 is Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, LLC, a United States limited liability company based in Pennsylvania. The “Westinghouse” name originates in 1886 and is used in connection with electrical engineering, power generation, electrical equipment, and consumer and industrial products, including outdoor power equipment. The Complainant is the owner of trademarks protecting the WESTINGHOUSE mark worldwide, including, among others, the following word trademarks: - United Kingdom word trademark WESTINGHOUSE, registration No. UK00000570694, registered on August 4, 1936, in International Class 11; - European Union word trademark WESTINGHOUSE, registration No. 002995363, registered on February 3, 2005, in International Classes 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14; and - United States figurative trademark , registration No. 299083, registered on November 22, 1932, in International Classes 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15. The Complainant operates its official website at <westinghouse.com> and owns the domain name <westinghouseoutdoorpower.com>, which redirects users to its principal website. The disputed domain name was registered on December 26, 2022, and at the time of the Complaint filing it redirected to a website under the name “SearchAndHelp.com”, displaying content about the Complainant’s outdoor power products together with third-party pay-per-click advertisements. The Respondent is a person located in China. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <westinghousoutdoorpower.com> is confusingly similar to its WESTINGHOUSE trademark. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name contains a clear typographical variant of the WESTINGHOUSE trademark, differing only by the omission of the letter “e” in “house”, while the WESTINGHOUSE trademark remains clearly recognizable. The Complainant further submits that the addition of the words “outdoor power” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from its WESTINGHOUSE trademark, as those words directly relate to the Complainant’s outdoor power equipment products. The Complainant argues that this wording reinforces the association with the Complainant and its business, particularly because the Complainant previously used the domain name <westinghouseoutdoorpower.com> for such products until September 2025. The Complainant submits that the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) should be disregarded for the purposes of the confusing similarity assessment. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent was not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name redirected to a website hosted on the “SearchAndHelp.com” platform, containing AI-generated text concerning the Complainant’s outdoor power page 3 products, including generators, pressure washers, and lawn care equipment, together with pay-per-click advertisements for unrelated third parties. According to the Complainant, such use exploited the reputation and goodwill of the WESTINGHOUSE trademark to attract Internet users and generate advertising revenue, and therefore did not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and was being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s longstanding and widely recognized WESTINGHOUSE trademark when registering the disputed domain name, which consists of a typographical variant of that trademark combined with the descriptive words “outdoor power”. The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name was used to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s WESTINGHOUSE trademark and directing them to a website containing AI-generated content about the Complainant’s products and pay-per-click advertisements. The Complainant also argues that there is no plausible good-faith use of the disputed domain name, particularly given its close resemblance to the Complainant’s former domain name <westinghouseoutdoorpower.com>. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Even if the Respondent did not file a Response to the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel shall consider the issues present in the case based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant. “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”, as indicated in paragraph 15(a) of the Rules. Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements: (i) the disputed domain name is 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 name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. 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 WESTINGHOUSE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the WESTINGHOUSE trademark is recognizable 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. The omission of the letter “e” in “house” is a minor misspelling of the mark and does not prevent the mark from remaining recognizable. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. page 4 Although the addition of other terms, here, “outdoor power”, 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 name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Furthermore, it is well accepted practice by UDRP panels that a gTLD, such as “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.1). For that reason, the Panel accepts not to take into consideration the gTLD “.com” when assessing confusing similarity of the disputed domain name. 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 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. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated with or connected to the Complainant in any manner, nor has the Complainant granted the Respondent any license or authorization to use or register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s WESTINGHOUSE trademark. The Respondent holds no prior rights in the WESTINGHOUSE trademark and has failed to respond to the Complaint, thereby providing no information or evidence that could establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent has made any legitimate or bona fide use of the disputed domain name, whether for commercial or noncommercial purposes. Rather, at the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain name redirected to a website under the name “SearchAndHelp.com”, displaying content concerning the Complainant’s outdoor power products together with third-party pay-per-click advertisements. The Complainant has thus established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, which has not been rebutted. There is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or by the names “Westinghouse” or “Westinghous Outdoor Power”. The composition of the disputed domain name, consisting of a misspelling of the Complainant’s WESTINGHOUSE trademark together with the descriptive terms “outdoor power”, may cause Internet users’ confusion as the disputed domain name mimics the Complainant’s domain name <westinghouseoutdoorpower.com>. Such use cannot be regarded as bona fide or as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint further supports the absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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 registered the disputed domain name approximately 90 years after the registration of the WESTINGHOUSE trademark and that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant’s outdoor power products. The disputed domain name incorporates a misspelling of the WESTINGHOUSE trademark, omitting the letter “e” in “house”, together with the additional terms “outdoor power”. These terms are descriptive of the Complainant’s business, as they refer to outdoor power equipment, including generators, pressure washers, and lawn and garden equipment. In the Panel’s view, the inclusion of these terms does not prevent an association with the Complainant and supports the inference that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name <westinghouseoutdoorpower.com>, which signals the Complainant’s intention to mimic the Complainant’s domain name. In the absence of any explanation for the choice of the WESTINGHOUSE trademark in the disputed domain name, the Panel considers that the registration of the disputed domain name was unlikely to have been coincidental. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website under the name “SearchAndHelp.com”, displaying content concerning the Complainant’s outdoor power products together with third-party pay-per-click advertisements. In the Panel’s view, such use is likely to create confusion among Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. The Panel also notes that the Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and did not provide any explanation for the registration and use of the disputed domain name. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, and having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Such use is likely to mislead Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and supports a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See also WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.5. 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 <westinghousoutdoorpower.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Petra Pecar/ Petra Pecar Sole Panelist Date: May 6, 2026

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