ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Caterpillar Inc. v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd Case No. DCO2025-0073 1. The Parties The Complainant is Caterpillar Inc., Colombia, represented by Baker & McKenzie S.A.S., Colombia. The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Above.au Pty Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 5, 2025. On September 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 15, 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 (Registrant of catcom.co (identity unknown due to privacy protection)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 15, 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 amended Complaint on September 18, 2025. 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 18, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 8, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 13, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on October 20, 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 is an American corporation which designs, develops, engineers, manufactures, markets and sells machinery, engine and other products, as well as financial, retail and rental services. The Complainant holds a portfolio of registrations for the well-known trade marks CATERPILLAR and CAT and variations of these in numerous countries and categories. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for CAT in Colombia, including the following, as per trademark certificates submitted to the Complaint: CAT 321883 registered on September 8, 2006, in classes 7, 9, 12, 37. Used for heavy machinery and vehicles. CAT 350415 registered on February 19, 2008, in class14. Used for jewelry and watches. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name , which was registered on March 17, 1995 and is used by the Complainant to promote its machinery and services under the trademarks CATERPILLAR and CAT on the correspondent website “www.caterpillar.com”. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name which is the address of its main website that offers, amongst other functions, online shopping for parts, products, and branded merchandise. The disputed domain name was registered on January 21, 2025 and is pointed to a website displaying pay per click ads. 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to each disputed domain name: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3 The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. 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. 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 mark 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 “com” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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. 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. In the present case, the disputed domain name is not in use, and the Respondent has failed to demonstrate the existence of any rights or legitimate interests in its favor. 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.
page 4 In the present case, the Panel notes that: - the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2025, which is significantly later than the Complainant’s first use and registration of its domain name dating back to at least 1995; - the Complainant’s trademarks are very well known around the world. They have been registered and used in relation to construction equipment for many years (Caterpillar Inc. v. Digitalus and H. van Zuylen Materieel, WIPO Case No. D2011-2105); - the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a pay per clik site with ads and has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and appears to have registered and used it in bad faith, seeking to capitalize on the Complainant’s reputation. Given these circumstances and the findings above, the Panel considers that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites and products on those websites within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of 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. /Pablo A. Palazzi/ Pablo A. Palazzi Sole Panelist Date: November 9, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy