Alstomapp.com

The timeline behind alstomapp.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 ALSTOM v. alstomapp alstomapp, alstomapp Case No. D2026-1057 1. The Parties The Complainant is ALSTOM, France, represented by Lynde & Associes, France. The Respondent is alstomapp alstomapp, alstomapp, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <alstomapp.com> is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 11, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 12, 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 (Identity Protection Service) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 12, 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 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 9, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 10, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Rodrigo Velasco Santelices as the sole panelist in this matter on April 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, ALSTOM, is a French company created in 1928. It is a global leader in the world of transport infrastructures, employing 84.000 professionals in more than 60 countries. Between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, ALSTOM’s order intake reached EUR 19.8 billion, and ALSTOM’s sales reached EUR 18.5 billion. ALSTOM operates worldwide and plays a significant role in the manufacture and overhaul of rolling stock. The goods and services they produce are extremely well known throughout the world. In the United Kingdom, where the Respondent indicates having their address, it is notably a key country for the Complainant. Indeed, ALSTOM has a long presence in this country. The Complainant has built, or are building, just under 40% of the United Kingdom mainline train fleet, as well as the entire fleets in service with London Underground and Dublin Luas. They are currently responsible for numerous cross rails, signaling and electrification projects. ALSTOM holds registrations that comprise the word “ALSTOM” in numerous jurisdictions around the world, including the following trademark registrations: - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00900948802 ALSTOM, registered on June 6, 2002, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42; - United Kingdom Trademark Registration No. UK00900948729 ALSTOM, registered on August 8, 2001, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42; - United States Trademark Registration No. 4236513 ALSTOM, registered on November 6, 2012, in class 12, duly renewed; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 000948729 ALSTOM, registered on August 8, 2001, duly renewed, in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42; - International Registration No. 706292 ALSTOM, registered on August 28, 1998, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37,38, 39, 40, 41 and 42; and - International Registration No. 706360 ALSTOM, registered on August 28, 1998, duly renewed, covering goods and services in classes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42. The Complainant, ALSTOM, is also the registrant of numerous domain names under various generic and country code Top-Level Domains that comprise its trademark, such as <alstom.com> registered since January 20, 1998, and <alstomgroup.com> registered on November 14, 2000, redirecting to the ALSTOM group’s website. This disputed domain name was registered on November 14, 2025. page 3 The disputed domain name at first redirected to a webpage reproducing the Complainant’s prior ALSTOM trademark, without the Complainant’s authorization and requesting web users to create an account to have access to the litigious website, making them believe that the website was operated by the Complainant. After the Complainant sent a trademark claim to the Registrar and the webhost on December 4, 2025, the website on the disputed domain name was suspended and the disputed domain name currently redirects to Error 522 page, which indicates a connection timeout between a CDN (Content Delivery Network) service and the website's origin server. 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 it is the owner of the registered trademark ALSTOM, so it cannot be questioned that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark since the disputed domain name reproduces the ALSTOM trademark in its entirety, followed by a descriptive term. Moreover, the disputed domain name associates the Complainant’s prior mark ALSTOM with the word “app”, which is commonly used as the diminutive of the word “application”. Therefore, the disputed domain name may lead web users to believe that it is related to an application operated by the Complainant. For reasons set out above, and pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant has strong rights in the well-known ALSTOM trademark, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to it. Thus, the Complainant further states that the Respondent clearly had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain names in order to exploit and profit from its trademark rights. The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 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 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 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. page 4 Although the addition of other terms here, “app”, 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 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. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademark ALSTOM was registered several years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant’s trademark ALSTOM is well known internationally. Therefore, the Respondent knew or should have known the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this fact cannot be a simple coincidence. 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. The Panel finds that the Respondent, for some time, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the disputed domain name, in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. page 5 The Panel notes that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, likely because of the Complainant sending a trademark claim to the Registrar and the web host. The non-use of the disputed domain name does not affect the Panel’s finding of bad faith under the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy, because given the reputation of ALSTOM and their activities worldwide, the disputed domain name will be directly considered by the public as belonging to ALSTOM. Therefore, 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 <alstomapp.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Rodrigo Velasco Santelices/ Rodrigo Velasco Santelices Sole Panelist Date: April 23, 2026

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