Industriesalstomgroupcompanies.com

The timeline behind industriesalstomgroupcompanies.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. Ailla Zam Case No. D2026-2743 1. The Parties 1.1 The Complainant is ALSTOM, France, represented by Lynde & Associes, France. 1.2 The Respondent is Ailla Zam, United States of America (“US” or “United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar 2.1 The disputed domain name <industriesalstomgroupcompanies.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History 3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 24, 2026. At that time, publicly available WhoIs details did not identify the underlying registrant of the Domain Name. 3.2 On June 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 24, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing underlying registrant and contact information for the Domain Name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 28, 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 July 1, 2026. 3.3 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”). 3.4 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 27, 2026. page 2 3.5 The Center appointed Matthew S. Harris 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. 4. Factual Background 4.1 The Complainant is a French company, founded in 1928, and is part of a group that provides systems, equipment, and services in the rail transport industry. It is active in more than 60 countries and has significant operations in, among other places, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Sweden, and Canada. 4.2 The Complainant is the owner of various registered trade marks around the world that comprise or incorporate the term “alstom”. They include: (i) United States registered trade mark No. 4570546, filed as application No. 85250501, for ALSTOM as a standard character mark, filed on February 24, 2011 and registered on July 22, 2014, in classes 7, 9, 12, 35, 37, 39, and 42; and (ii) European Union registered trade mark No. 948729 for ALSTOM as a word mark, filed on September 30, 1998 and registered on August 8, 2001, in classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 24, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42. 4.3 The Complainant also owns various domain names that incorporate the term “alstom”, including <alstom.com>, registered on January 20, 1998, and <alstomgroup.com>, registered on November 14, 2000. The Complainant uses the domain name <alstom.com> for its main website. 4.4 The Domain Name was registered on May 25, 2026. It has resolved to a page stating that the content of the page cannot be displayed, or otherwise has returned a “403 Forbidden” error. 4.5 On June 3, 2026, the Complainant sent a communication to the Respondent through the contact form provided in the public WhoIs record, asserting rights in the ALSTOM mark and requesting transfer of the Domain Name. The Complainant also contacted the Registrar. The Respondent did not respond to these communications. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant 5.1 The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. 5.2 In this respect, the Complainant refers to its business, its registered trade marks, and the composition and use of the Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the Domain Name comprises its ALSTOM trade mark combined with the generic terms “industries”, “group”, and “companies”, and that these terms reinforce the impression that the Domain Name refers to the Complainant or the Complainant’s group of companies. The Complainant also contends that searches conducted by reference to the Respondent’s disclosed contact details did not identify any connection with the name “alstom”, and that searches for the address provided by the Registrar did not yield any specific results. 5.3 It further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. page 3 B. Respondent 5.4 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 6.1 It is generally 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 trade mark and the domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. 6.2 The Complainant has shown rights in registered trade marks for ALSTOM. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 6.3 The only sensible reading of the Domain Name is as the word “industries”, followed by the term “alstom”, followed by the words “group” and “companies”, and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”). Accordingly, the entirety of the Complainant’s ALSTOM mark is reproduced within the Domain Name and as a consequence that mark is clearly recognisable in the Domain Name. 6.4 It follows that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Further, the addition of the words “industries”, “group”, and “companies” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 6.5 The Panel, therefore, finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests, and Registered and Used in Bad Faith 6.6 It is usual for panels under the Policy to consider the issues of rights or legitimate interests, and registration and use in bad faith, in turn. However, in this case it is more convenient to consider those issues together (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.15). 6.7 The reason for this is that the Panel is satisfied that the Domain Name was registered and is being held to target the Complainant and to falsely suggest that it is connected with the Complainant or one of the companies in the Complainant’s group. 6.8 In this respect the Panel accepts that the Domain Name inherently impersonates the Complainant, or at least an entity associated with the Complainant, in the sense described in section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. The only sensible reading of the Domain Name is as the word “industries”, followed by the term “alstom”, followed by the words “group” and “companies”. “Alstom” has no obvious meaning other than as a reference to the Complainant and its trade mark. Further, the words “industries”, “group”, and “companies” are all terms that are apt to describe a large commercial group such as the Complainant’s, and their combination with the Complainant’s mark reinforces rather than dispels the impression that the Domain Name is connected with the Complainant. 6.9 Given this, Internet users are likely to believe that the Domain Name is owned or authorised by the Complainant, and the Panel is satisfied absent evidence or argument to the contrary that this was intended by the Respondent. 6.10 There is no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for the purpose of such impersonation, and registration and use of a domain name for such a purpose is registration and use in bad faith. page 4 6.11 Further, the fact that the Domain Name does not appear to have been used for an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3). 6.12 There is also the issue of the contact address provided for the Domain Name by the Respondent. The Panel does not find the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent deliberately sought to conceal his identity by using an anonymisation service particularly convincing. The name initially recorded as part of the WhoIs details for the Domain Name appears to be the standard privacy service offered by the Registrar. However, there is also the fact that the address subsequently disclosed by the Registrar, according to the Complainant, “does not yield any results”. The Panel would go further than this. A simple Google Maps search suggests that the address given by the Respondent does not exist. 1 Accordingly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s contention that there has been deliberate concealment of the Respondent’s identity and contact details in this case, and this is another factor that points to bad faith registration and use. 6.13 In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The second and third elements of the Policy have therefore been established. 7. Decision 7.1 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 <industriesalstomgroupcompanies.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Matthew S. Harris/ Matthew S. Harris Sole Panelist Date: August 12, 2026 1 As to the legitimacy of the Panel relying upon such a search, see section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.1.

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