Arguments did not compute — Alstom’s cybersquatting
Panelist shows how train maker’s bad faith arguments didn’t make sense.
A recent UDRP decision at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) raises interesting questions regarding complainant diligence and reverse domain name hijacking.
Alstom, a French train and rail manufacturer, filed a dispute against the domain name AlstoMarketing .com.
The firm became aware of the registration in 2020 and demanded that the domain registrar reveal the identity of the registrant, which the registrar did not provide. Since then, the domain has never been used for an active website. Five years later, Alstom filed a UDRP.
Following the case was filed, Alstom learned that the domain was registered to someone whose surname is Alston through the registrar verification process. Despite this revelation, it proceeded with the dispute.
The registrant stated he registered the domain for a marketing business he was planning. That business hasn’t gotten off the ground.
Panelist Georges Nahitchevansky did a good job thinking logically through the bad faith arguments in this case. He wrote (pdf):
To begin, the disputed domain name on its face raises a number of possibilities. The disputed domain name can be broken down to read “alsto marketing”, “alstom arketing”, or simply a typo version that drops an “m” in the phrase “alstom marketing”. Respondent claims he registered “Alstomarketing” based on his surname, and Complainant appears to urge that Respondent registered a typo version of “alstom marketing” to specifically target Complainant. Interestingly, when the Panel ran a search of logically related domain names it found that the domain name alstonmarketing .com had been registered since 2003 and that alstommarketing .com was available for registration. Thus, on its face it appears more plausible that Respondent, as he claims, registered the disputed domain name based on his surname, given that alstonmarketing .com was not available. Following all, it would seem illogical to register a typo version of “alstom marketing”, when the more relevant (and potentially valuable) domain name alstommarketing .com was available. And certainly, if Respondent was targeting Complainant, registering alstommarketing .com would have been a much clearer attempt to do so.
Indeed, it’s remarkable that the firm went through the UDRP process for this domain that doesn’t match its brand, and still hasn’t registered the domain that does match its brand.
Nahitchevansky declined to find reverse domain name hijacking, primarily since it wasn’t known at the time of filing that the registrant’s surname was Alston.
This raises an notable question: once a Complainant learns that a domain owner’s name matches (or is similar) to the domain, do they have a duty to withdraw the case ahead of submitting an amended complaint? And ought to panelists factor this into their consideration of reverse domain name hijacking?
In the recent soskin. com case, a panelist found reverse domain name hijacking under similar circumstances: the complainant discovered the registrant’s matching surname following filing but still moved forward.
One other final interesting thing regarding the AlstoMarketing case: the registrar’s Whois record shows that this domain expired in 2023, although it continues to be renewed with the registry.
