ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. RyanLee Smit, RyanLee Smit Case No. D2025-3556 1. The Parties The Complainant is ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., Switzerland, represented by Taylor Wessing Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB, Germany. The Respondent is RyanLee Smit, RyanLee Smit, South Africa. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
(the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 3, 2025. On September 3, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On September 3, 2025, 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 (UNKNOWN / REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 8, 2025, 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 amendment to the Complaint on September 11, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 September 12, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 6, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2025. 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, ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., is part of ABB Group, a worldwide group of companies operating in particular in the field of power and automation technology with over 100,000 employees in over 100 countries worldwide. The Complainant’s group has been on the Global 500 list for 24 consecutive years, which ranks the world’s largest companies. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks, including the following: - ABB, International word mark No. 527480 registered on May 11, 1988, covering products in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 17; and - European Union figurative trademark No. 002628964 depicted below, registered on November 21, 2003, and covering products and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45: The Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2025. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s marks, using the look and feel and other content of the Complainant’s official website. The website appears to advertise products identical or similar to the Complainant’s products. 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 the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it claims to have rights. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, as the related website is nearly identical to a website linked to another domain name which has been transferred to the Complainant after a successful proceeding under .za Alternate Dispute Resolution Regulations.. According to the Complainant, this leaves no room for a bona fide use but only a deliberate and fraudulent approach by the Respondent. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In summary, according to the Complainant, the mere fact that the Respondent registered a domain name that is highly similar to the well-known ABB trademarks and the Respondent is copying the Complainant’s well-known figurative mark on the related website shows that the Respondent acted in bad faith. This use proves that the Respondent is aware of both the Complainant and its well-known ABB trademark. The Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name to deceive Internet users into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is operated or authorized by the Complainant, and to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the well-known trademark ABB, presumably for commercial gain.
page 3 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 (textual components of the) Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel observes that the entirety of the ABB mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. In such cases, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to the incorporated mark for purposes of UDRP standing. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Additionally, the Panel finds that the addition of another term – here, “group” – does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. It is well established that generic Top-Level-Domains (“gTLDs”), here “.store”, may be disregarded when considering whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The meaning of such gTLD may however be relevant to panel assessment of the second and third elements. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. 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 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 3.0, 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.
page 4 The Panel notes that the Respondent has not apparently been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. According to the information provided by the Registrar, the Respondent is “RyanLee Smit”. The Respondent’s use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name was not authorized by the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s ABB trademark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “group”, which can obviously be linked to the Complainant’s group of companies. In addition, the Panel finds that the “.store” gTLD can even increase the likelihood of confusion as it can be considered to refer to an online store of the Complainant. According to the Panel, the Disputed Domain Name coupled with its use to impersonate the Complainant cannot constitute fair use. Beyond looking at the disputed domain name and the nature of any additional terms appended to the mark, UDRP panels also assess whether the overall facts and circumstances of the case, such as the content of the website linked to a disputed domain name and the absence of a response, support a fair use or not. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. The Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website reproducing both the Complainant’s word and figurative trademarks mentioned above, and copying the look and feel and other content from the Complainant’s official website without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant. The website also appears to advertise products identical or similar to the Complainant’s products. In the Panel’s view, this neither amounts to a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. UDRP panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (e.g. impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests but did not do so. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted. 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. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. In the present case, the Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name: - the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and combines it with both a generic term and a gTLD which can easily be linked to the Complainant’s business; - at least one of the Complainant’s trademarks predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by more than 20 years; and - the Disputed Domain Name refers to a website reproducing both the Complainant’s word and figurative trademarks mentioned above, copying the look and feel and other content from the Complainant’s official website, and advertising products identical or at least similar to the Complainant’s products. In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Given that the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity can never
page 5 confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. In addition, the Complainant’s evidence indicates that the Respondent already targeted the Complainant with another domain name, which has been found to be an abusive registration and resolved to a nearly identical website. In the Panel’s view, this is a further indication of bad faith. By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not take any initiative to contest the foregoing. Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Rules, the Panel may draw the conclusions it considers appropriate. 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Flip Jan Claude Petillion/ Flip Jan Claude Petillion Sole Panelist Date: October 22, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy