WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Valeo v. Domain Administrator, Domain Administrator, Conrad Design Ltd Case No. D2019-0236 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Valeo of Paris, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Conrad Design Ltd of Worcestershire, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Register.IT SPA (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 30, 2019. On January 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 31, 2019, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 1, 2019 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 February 1, 2019.

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 February 8, 2019. The same day, the Center was copied on an email from “Compressortech” addressed to the Complainant, in reply to the Center’s notification email. On February 9, 2019, the Center was copied on an email response from Dakeyne Emms Gilmore Liberson Limited, solicitors, to Compressortech. On February 13, 2019, the Complainant emailed the Center. (See further details of the above correspondence in section 4 below).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 28, 2019. No formal Response was filed with the Center. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 4, 2019.

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on March 18, 2019. 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 part of a automotive group which has traded worldwide under the name “Valeo” since 1980. In 2017, its turnover was some EUR 18.6 billion.

The Complainant owns many trade marks for VALEO including European Union Trade Mark No. 187542 for the stylised term “Valeo”, filed on April 1, 1996, registered on October 20, 1999, in classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 25, 35, and 38.

The Complainant’s group operates various websites including at “” and “”.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 14, 2010.

The Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website branded “Compressortech”, offering remanufactured automotive compressors.

Following service of the Complaint on February 8, 2019, an email was sent by “Compressortech” to the Complainant, copied to the Center. (The Panel assumes that Compressortech, the operator of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, is the ultimate controller of the disputed domain name and, accordingly, the Panel treats the entity as interchangeable with the Respondent.) In that email, the Respondent said that it was a distributor of the Complainant’s products. It criticized the Complainant’s “heavy-handed” approach but offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.

On February 13, 2019, the Complainant emailed the Center pointing out that the Complainant had not authorised the Respondent to register the disputed domain name and asking the Center to continue with this proceeding. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The following is a summary of the Complainant’s contentions.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s famous and distinctive trade mark, which it wholly incorporates. The addition of the descriptive term “compressor”, common in the Complainant’s industry, does not alter the overall similarity.

The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has no legitimate reason to incorporate the Complainant’s well-known mark in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use its mark.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “Valeo”.

The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for “genuine” activity. The website at the disputed domain name is the same as that used by the Respondent on its own website at “”. The Respondent seeks to take commercial advantage of the Complainant’s prior and well-known ri