ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. guang zhou hao yong ji dian she bei you xian gong si (LLC) Case No. D2025-4085 1. The Parties The Complainant is ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd., Switzerland, represented by Taylor Wessing LLP, Germany. The Respondent is guang zhou hao yong ji dian she bei you xian gong si (LLC), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 7, 2025. On October 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 9, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 13, 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 in English on October 15, 2025. On October 13, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On October 15, 2025, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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”).
page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 7, 2025. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on November 21, 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 the 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 large international trademark portfolio for the ABB marks, including but not limited to the following: - International Trademark Registration No. 527480, for the word mark ABB, 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, for the figurative mark ABB, 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. Additionally, the Complainant provides evidence that its Italian affiliated company, namely ABB S.P.A, owns a number of trademark registrations for the mark SACE, including but not limited to the following trademarks: - International Trademark Registration No. 467572, for the word mark SACE, registered on February 16, 1982, covering products in class 9; and - Irish Trademark Registration No. 106398, registered on August 24, 1982, for the word mark SACE, covering products in class 9. The Complainant also proves that the Complainant is acting in this proceeding with the explicit authorization of this affiliated company to assert these trademarks and to request the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered on October 10, 2019, and directs to an active website operated by the Respondent, advertising and offering for sale a comprehensive range of ABB-branded products of unclear origin. The website at the disputed domain name also mentions “Guangzhou Haoyong Electromechanical is a first-tier distributor for ABB […]” at the “About Us” section of such website. 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 consists of two components, each of which is identical to the trademarks of the Complainant or its affiliated company, namely ABB and SACE. The Complainant essentially argues that the combination of these two different trademarks into the disputed
page 3 domain name constitutes a domain name that is likely to cause confusion. Further, the Complainant essentially argues that the Respondent is a company previously known by the Complainant to have infringed on its intellectual property rights, and that it has no rights or legitimate interest to register and use the disputed domain name. The Complainant particularly contends that the Respondent is wrongly representing itself as an official distributor and that it is not an authorized reseller of the Complainant’s products and does not meet criteria established in the Oki Data case for legitimate use by a reseller. As to bad faith, the Complainant essentially argues that it is evident that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain name and that it is a reasonable inference in the circumstances of this case that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name based on the attractiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks, in order to drive traffic to the Respondent’s website where the Respondent offers products which are claimed to be either grey imports or even counterfeit products. Further, the Complainant essentially contends that the Respondent’s primary motive in relation to the registration and use of the disputed domain name is to capitalize on, or otherwise take advantage of, the Complainant’s trademark rights, for undue commercial gain which, it claims, is evidence of its bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requests that the language of the proceeding be English on the grounds that the Respondent has sufficient ability to communicate in English language and that the spirit of the abovementioned paragraph 11 is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the Parties’ level of comfort with each language, the expenses to be incurred and possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Findings on the Merits 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
page 4 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 entirety of the Complainant’s mark ABB is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, the Complainant’s affiliate’s mark SACE, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent the 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. 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. Further, the Panel notes that the record contains no evidence showing that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, or any preparations for such use. To the contrary, upon review of the facts and evidence submitted in this case, the Panel considers that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host a website advertising and offering for sale a comprehensive range of ABB-branded products of unclear origin. The Panel also notes that this website mentions “Guangzhou Haoyong Electromechanical is a first-tier distributor for ABB […]” at the “about us” section of such website, which is denied by the Complainant. This means that the Respondent is not displaying any accurate and prominent disclaimer regarding the absence of the relationship between the Parties but instead suggesting a commercial connection between the Parties. The Panel is of the view that the foregoing elements illustrate that the Respondent is clearly not acting as a good faith provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name, see also Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. Additionally, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name, being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and solely consisting of the Complainant’s ABB mark and the Complainant’s affiliate’s SACE mark, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use, as it effectively impersonates the Complainant (and its affiliate) and its products or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant (and its affiliate) (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1). The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
page 5 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known and intensely used trademark ABB. See in this regard also earlier UDRP decisions recognizing the well-known nature of the Complainant’s ABB marks, such as ABB Asea Brown Boveri Ltd. v. Toni Woods, WIPO Case No. D2014-1543. The Panel infers from this fact that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent deliberately and consciously targeted the Complainant’s prior well-known trademarks for ABB. The Panel finds that this creates a presumption of bad faith. In this regard, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, which states “[p]anels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” Furthermore, the Panel also notes that the Complainant’s trademarks were registered years before the registration date of the disputed domain name and could easily be identified by the Respondent by a simple Internet search or trademark search. The Panel infers from these elements that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registering the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, these elements indicate bad faith on the part of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name directs to an active website showing a clear intent on the part of the Respondent to sell what are purported to be the Complainant’s products (of unclear origin) for financial gain. The Panel concludes from these facts that the Respondent is intentionally attracting Internet users for commercial gain to such website, by creating consumer confusion between the website associated with the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. This constitutes direct evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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. /Deanna Wong Wai Man/ Deanna Wong Wai Man Sole Panelist Date: December 1, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy