Alimakqroup.com

The timeline behind alimakqroup.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 Alimak Group Management AB v. Name Redacted Case No. D2026-2707 1. The Parties The Complainant is Alimak Group Management AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Name Redacted. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <alimakqroup.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 22, 2026. On June 23, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 23, 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 (User #a598f960 Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 25, 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 June 30, 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 July 6, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 26, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 28, 2026. The Center appointed Anton Polikarpov as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant, founded in 1948 and headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, is a global provider of vertical access solutions for working at height, including permanent and temporary elevators, construction hoists, work platforms, height safety equipment, and related after-sales services. The Complainant is a part of Alimak Group, which is listed on Nasdaq Stockholm, operates 56 sales offices and 26 manufacturing and assembly facilities across 15 countries, employs approximately 3,000 people worldwide, and generated revenue of approximately SEK 6.9 billion (MSEK 6,874) in 2025. In order to protect its distinctive identity on the market, the Complainant registered a significant number of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions, including, among others: - Swedish Trademark No. 118501 for ALIMAK, registered on January 5, 1967, covering goods in Classes: 6, 7, 12; - European Union Trademark No. 000361022 for ALIMAK, registered on September 11, 1998, covering goods in Classes: 7, 9; - International Registration No. 1622403 for ALIMAK, registered on December 12, 2019, covering goods and services in Classes: 6, 7, 9, 12, 35, 37, 40, 41 and 42 (designating, inter alia, the United States of America, Australia, Canada, China); - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00918081201 for , registered on January 9, 2020, covering goods and services in Classes: 6, 7, 9, 12, 35, 37, 41 and 42; - United States Trademark No. 8163965 for , registered on March 10, 2026, covering goods and services in Classes: 6, 7, 9, 35, 37 and 41. The Complainant also owns and uses the domain names <alimakgroup.com> (registered March 26, 2015) and <alimak.com> (registered April 3, 1996) to resolve to its official websites. The expression “ALIMAK GROUP” also forms part of the Complainant’s corporate name, Alimak Group Management AB. The disputed domain name <alimakqroup.com> was registered on May 23, 2026. It reproduces the ALIMAK mark in its entirety followed by “qroup”, a one-letter substitution of “group” in which the letter “g” has been replaced by the visually similar letter “q”. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a parked page displaying pay- per-click (“PPC”) links on topics including family trees, building access solutions, wireless Internet connectivity, vehicle valuations, and Wi-Fi services. By the time of the amended Complaint, the displayed links included, among other things, luxury cars, news, building access solutions, and online money-making opportunities. The disputed domain name also has active mail exchanger (“MX”) records, indicating that it has been configured for email services. On May 25, 2026, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, through the privacy service and the Registrar, which the Registrar confirmed it forwarded to the underlying registrant. The Complainant sent further reminders on June 4 and June 9, 2026. No response was received to any of these communications. Following registrar verification, the underlying registrant was disclosed under contact details bearing a United States address, and a name that corresponds to that of an individual whom the Complainant has identified, through a LinkedIn profile extract, as an existing employee of the Alimak Group based in the United Kingdom, working as a controller. The Complainant states that this employee did not create the disputed domain name and had no involvement in its registration. 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, notably: - the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has established rights; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; - the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Redaction of the Disclosed Registrant’s Identity At the time the Complaint was filed, the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name identified the registrant only as a privacy/proxy service. Following the Center’s verification request, the Registrar disclosed underlying registrant details bearing the name, the United States address, the telephone number, and the email address. The Complainant has submitted evidence, in the form of the LinkedIn profile extract, that an individual bearing the same name is a current employee of the Alimak Group based in the United Kingdom, and has represented that this employee has confirmed he did not register the disputed domain name and has no connection to it. The Panel notes the marked inconsistency between the disclosed contact address (United States) and the known location of the Complainant’s employee (United Kingdom), the absence of any plausible explanation for the Alimak Group employee registering a typosquatted variant of his own employer’s domain name, and the fact that the disputed domain name has active MX records and closely imitates the Complainant’s own <alimakgroup.com> domain – circumstances consistent with an attempt to borrow the credibility of the real employee’s name for use in connection with impersonation or phishing infrastructure, rather than any genuine registration by that employee. Panels have recognized that where the WhoIs-disclosed registrant name appears to have been used without the named individual’s knowledge or consent, publication of that name in a decision would serve only to compound the harm to an innocent third party, and that redaction is an appropriate exercise of the Panel’s general powers under paragraphs 10(a) through (c) of the Rules to ensure the fair and efficient conduct of the proceeding. In Natixis v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0162569438 / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2021-3147, the panel redacted the respondent’s name from the decision on materially indistinguishable facts, where the disclosed registrant name matched that of a complainant employee who had apparently not registered the domain name at issue. Consistent with that approach, and with the broader body of UDRP practice addressing apparent identity theft in registrant disclosures, the Panel directs that the name and contact details disclosed by the Registrar be redacted from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case page 4 (see Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST - 12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788). For the avoidance of doubt, the redaction does not affect the Panel’s assessment of the registrant information disclosed by the Registrar. The Panel considers that the Center discharged its responsibilities under the Policy and the Rules to notify the Respondent of this proceeding and provided the Respondent with an adequate opportunity to respond. The apparent unauthorized use of the employee’s identity is considered below, together with the other circumstances of the case, in assessing the second and third elements of the Policy. 6.2. Substantive Elements of the Policy Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, 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) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a party defaults, the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences as it considers appropriate. The Panel may accept as true the factual allegations that are reasonable and supported by the evidence submitted, while remaining independently satisfied that the Complainant has carried its burden on each of the three Policy elements. So the Panel rules as follows. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the ALIMAK mark through registrations dating as far back as 1967, well predating the creation of the disputed domain name. The Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the reasonable views stated therein. Section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 makes clear that, where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. The applicable test for confusing similarity under the first element involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself, typically assessed on an objective side-by-side basis (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7). Where a mark is recognizable within a domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, geographical, meaningless, or otherwise, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element; such additional terms are usually disregarded, or considered together with the balance of the domain name, in the context of the second and third elements only (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8). The disputed domain name incorporates the ALIMAK mark in its entirety as its leading and dominant element. The trailing term “qroup” is a one-character substitution of the descriptive word “group” for the visually similarly shaped letter “q” in place of “g”. This constitutes a form of typosquatting that panels have consistently found does not avoid, and typically reinforces, a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where, as here, the resulting string closely mimics the Complainant’s own domain name <alimakgroup.com> (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9). page 5 The Panel agrees with, and adopts the reasoning of, the panel in Alstom v. Maxi Milano, WIPO Case No. D2023-1108, concerning the structurally identical domain name <alstomqroup.com>, where the trademark was found to remain clearly recognizable notwithstanding the same “g”/“q” substitution. The “.com” gTLD suffix is a standard technical registration requirement and is disregarded under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1). Accordingly, the Panel finds the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second element, the Complainant must first make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; the burden of production then shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence, supporting its side under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1). The Complainant has made such a prima facie case: (i) the WhoIs and disclosed registrant information do not suggest that the Respondent is or was commonly known by the disputed domain name; (ii) the Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the ALIMAK mark in any form, and no evidence suggests the Respondent holds any trademark rights corresponding to “alimakqroup” or similar terms; (iii) the searches conducted by the Complainant on trademark databases and general search engines returned no results connecting the Respondent to the relevant term, with search results instead overwhelmingly relating to the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page monetized through PPC links, at least one of which (building access solutions) directly overlaps with the Complainant’s field of business. Panels have consistently held that using a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark to host a PPC parking page does not, of itself, confer rights or legitimate interests where the resulting page capitalizes on the reputation of the complainant’s trademark, regardless of whether the specific links were selected by the Respondent or generated automatically by the parking service (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.9). The case record additionally indicates that the Respondent used, without apparent authorization, the name of an actual employee of the Complainant when registering or maintaining the disputed domain name, namely, contact details inconsistent with that employee’s actual location, but consistent with an attempt to lend an air of legitimacy or affiliation to the registration. Impersonation of a complainant or a complainant’s personnel is inherently incompatible with a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1; Phoenix Group Management Services Limited v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2024-3829). Finally, the Respondent failed to describe any reason supporting its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within this administrative proceeding, as well as to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and two reminders. The Panel therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also satisfied. C. Registered and U sed in Bad Faith The ALIMAK mark is a coined and highly distinctive term. The Complainant’s registered rights in the ALIMAK mark date back to at least 1967 and therefore predate the registration of the disputed domain name by several decades. The disputed domain name reproduces this distinctive mark in full and combines it with a one-letter misspelling of “group”. This configuration is not consistent with coincidence; it reflects deliberate targeting of the Complainant and calculated exploitation of a common typing/reading error. page 6 The abovementioned circumstances indicate that the Respondent more likely than not had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name and had an intent to take an unfair advantage of the Complainant’s successful brand. The Panel further finds it a significant aggravating factor that the registrant contact information disclosed for the disputed domain name bears the name of an actual, identifiable employee of the Complainant, with contact details inconsistent with that employee’s true location (see the WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.4.6). Selecting the name of a real employee of the entity being targeted points affirmatively to actual knowledge of the Complainant, its corporate structure, and, potentially, its personnel, at the time of registration, and is itself probative of a scheme oriented toward deception rather than any legitimate registration purpose. For these reasons, the Panel believes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. As regards the use, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page carrying sponsored PPC advertising, including at least one link concerning building access solutions, the Complainant’s own field of activity. Panels have found that the operator of a domain name used in this manner intentionally attracts Internet users who are misled by the confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s mark, and that commercial gain may properly be inferred even where individual clicks are not paid directly to the respondent, since the respondent benefits from the arrangement with the advertising or parking platform, or otherwise derives value from the traffic diversion itself (see the WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.5; Erica Wright v. Tom Belfort, Wolf AI Digital LLC, WIPO Case No. D2025-1942). The presence of active MX records is an additional factor relevant to the Panel’s assessment. While the existence of MX records does not establish that phishing or other fraudulent email activity has actually occurred, it demonstrates that the disputed domain name has been configured for email services and therefore presents the potential for deceptive email use. The use of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in emails that do not originate with the trademark owner presents a risk to the reputation of a trademark and its owner (see IPSOS v. Ipsos Market, ipsosmarketsurvey, WIPO Case No. D2023-2856). That risk is especially acute here: the substitution of “q” for “g” in “group” is easily overlooked by a recipient scanning an email domain, and the apparent use of the name of the actual Alimak Group employee as registrant contact information suggests that any resulting correspondence could be crafted to appear internally or commercially legitimate. On the present record, the Panel considers the combination of a typosquatted domain, active MX records, and the unauthorized use of the employee’s identity to be strongly indicative of an infrastructure built for impersonation or phishing, which itself independently supports a finding of bad faith use under the Policy. Finally, the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter of May 25, 2026 and its reminders of June 4 and June 9, 2026, as well as its failure to submit a Response in this administrative proceeding, further supports an inference of bad faith, as the Respondent has had repeated opportunities to explain any legitimate basis for its registration and use of the disputed domain name and has consistently declined to do so (see Compagnie Generale Des Etablissements Michelin v. Vaclav Novotny, WIPO Case No. D2009-1022). Based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been, and is being, used in bad faith. As such, the Complainant succeeds under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. page 7 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, <alimakqroup.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Anton Polikarpov/ Anton Polikarpov Sole Panelist Date: August 6, 2026

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