NOMINET UK DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICE
DRS 5873
Alstom v Steve Hulme 
Decision of Independent Expert
1.	Parties: 

Complainant:		Alstom S.A
Country:		France

Respondent:		Steve Hulme
	Edinburgh

Disputed Domain Name

alstompower.co.uk (“the Domain Name”)

2.	Procedural Background:

The Complaint was lodged with Nominet in full on 18 July 2008. No Response was filed by the Respondent (although an email was sent by a person identifying himself as “Tom” from the email account tomroddick@hotmail.com in response to communications from Nominet, which I will refer to in more detail below). On 21 August 2008, the Complainant paid Nominet the appropriate fee for a decision of an Expert pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy (“the Policy”).

Cerryg Jones, the undersigned, (“the Expert”) confirmed to Nominet that he knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act as expert in this case and further confirmed that he knew of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality.

3.	Outstanding Formal/Procedural Issues (if any):
There are no other outstanding procedural issues that arise. 
4.	The Background:

The Complainant is a multi-national business in equipment and services for power generation and rail transport, and operates in over 70 countries with around 65,000 employees. It has numerous registered trade marks from ALSTOM including a registered stylised Community trade mark for ALSTOM with a registration date of 30 September 1998.  Various documents evidencing ownership of rights in the ALSTOM mark have been submitted with the complaint including print outs from various Registry databases, as well as website screen shots. 

Nothing is known about the Respondent, who failed to file a Response. An email was sent in response to a Nominet communication serving the complaint by “Tom” stating that “…I am only interested in resolving this as quickly as possible.  If this requires losing my email address, then I would [sic] like the appropriate actions to be taken….”  In reply, Nominet asked “Tom” to confirm whether he was acting as the registrant’s representative.  “Tom” did not reply to that email.

When the Domain Name is entered into a user’s browser, the website of a business known as 123-reg.co.uk appears, with the message that the disputed domain name “…has been registered on behalf of a client by 123-reg.co.uk”. 123-reg.co.uk offer a variety of web related services.  

5	The Complainant’s submissions

The Complainant alleges the following:

1	That the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use and register the ALSTOM trade mark or register a domain name incorporating this trade mark.
2	That the Respondent is not known by the name “Alstom”.
3	That ALSTOM is an invented word.
4	That the Domain Name was registered after rights in the ALSTOM name had accrued.
5	That the Domain Name could be mistaken for the UK branch of the complainant, and constitutes an inherent misrepresentation that the registrant is connected to the complainant.
6	That the Respondent’s motive was to take advantage of the goodwill subsisting in ALSTOM, “power” being a descriptor.
7	That the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s correspondence indicates his desire not to be contacted.
8	That the Respondent is not making a legitimate, non-commercial use of the Domain Name. 
9	That the Respondent is illegitimately profiting from internet traffic.
6	Discussion and findings

The first question that needs to be decided is whether the Complainant has “rights,” (as defined by the DRS Policy), in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name. Clearly the Complainant has satisfied this test, the only difference being the use of the descriptor “power”.

In the absence of a Response, this matter is straightforward. I have easily formed the view that, on a balance of probabilities, the Domain Name deliberately attempts to trade off the fame and goodwill subsisting in the ALSTOM trade mark by seeking to mislead and attract internet traffic searching for information about the Complainant to an alternative website operated by a business which is entirely unconnected to the Complainant. No doubt the Respondent profits from this arrangement, without any justification. As such, the Domain Name constitutes an Abusive Registration as it has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights. 

8	Decision:

In the light of the foregoing findings, namely that the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is similar to the Domain Name and that the Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an abusive registration, I direct that it be transferred. 

Cerryg Jones                                                                   15 September 2008