The Complainant TotalEnergies SE was originally created under the name of Compagnie Française des Pétroles and registered before the French Companies Registry on March 28, 1924. The Complainant produces and markets oil and biofuels, natural gas and green gases, renewables, and electricity, operating worldwide in around 120 countries through a large Group, and numerous subsidiaries. TotalEnergies SE’s business includes all aspects of the energy industry from production to marketing, as well as in the development of next generation energy activities (biomass, wind). It is also a major actor of natural gas and solar energy operator.<\/p>\n
The Complainant holds the trademark registrations “TOTAL”, “TOTAL ENERGIES” and “TotalEnergies” and domain names bearing these trademarks.<\/p>\n
On November 25, 2024; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <total-energies-se.com>. It is currently inactive at the date of this decision, and it can be seen from the screenshot provided in the Annexes that it was “being prepared” before without any more content. <\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant requests the Panel to exercise its discretion and allow the language of the proceeding to be English based on the following reasons:<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant explains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “TotalEnergies” as it bears the Complainant’s trademark and trade name TotalEnergies SE as a whole with the addition of two hyphens, which are not sufficient to avoid likelihood of confusion, as well as the GTLD, which would be disregarded.<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the Respondent is neither affiliated nor authorized by the Complainant in any way. Moreover, the Complainant alleges that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the Respondent has unlawfully used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant by sending fraudulent e-mails for fake request for quotation with the e-mail address containing the disputed domain name as the e-mail extension\/signature block. This deceptive conduct is claimed to be aimed to exploit the Complainant’s reputation and illegitimately trade on its fame for gaining money, while misleading the public\/service provider into believing that it is the Complainant. The use of the disputed domain name to pass off as the Complainant through impersonation is stated to be not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under the Policy.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant pointed out that the Respondent is either the prior owner or a related person to the prior owner of domain name <totalenergies-fr.com> which was used for fraud and against which an UDRP action was filed before WIPO by Complainant (WIPO Case no. D2024-4183).<\/p>\n The following reasons were stated as to why the Complainant has strong reasons to believe both domain names related:<\/p>\n The Complainant states that further to the Registrar verification, it now knows that Respondent is Foulfoin Jacques Philippe - foulfoinphilippe406@gmail.com - N\/A - 3 sentier des Clamart - ile de France – Turkey - 92140 +90.0644676633. As a consequence, the Complainant now has the official proof that the Respondent is the exact same person who is the prior owner of domain name <totalenergies-fr.com>.<\/p>\n Given the above, the Complainant asserted that the Respondent has had a history of registering domain names comprising the well-known mark and company TotalEnergies and TotalEnergies SE and using the malicious domain names to create e-mail addresses and then sending fraudulent e-mails for requests for quotation and impersonating the Complainant.<\/p>\n In consequence, the Complainant argues that the Respondent cannot possibly acquire a right or have a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant states that the reservation of a domain name identical or highly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights while the Respondent has no right to the domain name or legitimate interests in this respect and without authorization, demonstrates in itself that the Respondent is in bad faith.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant also claims that since its trademarks are well-known and acquired a worldwide reputation in the field of industry in which it specializes since several decades, the Respondent could not have ignored the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, with which it is confusingly similar. Also, the Complainant points out that a simple Google search would have necessarily forwarded the Respondent to the websites of the Complainant, which predate the disputed domain name and are also well-known.<\/p>\n The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name is used for the creation of a messaging server. More than that, the Respondent has unlawfully used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant by sending fraudulent e-mails for fake requests for quotation. This deceptive conduct aimed to exploit the Complainant’s reputation and illegitimately trade on its fame for gaining money, while misleading the public\/service provider into believing that it is the Complainant.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant claims that the Respondent is either the prior owner or a related person to the prior owner of domain name <totalenergies-fr.com>, which was used for fraud and against which an UDRP action was filed before WIPO by Complainant (WIPO Case no. D2024-4183).<\/p>\n As a consequence, the Complainant states that the registration of the disputed domain name <total-energies-se.com> is highly prejudicing for the Complainant but also the random recipients, as the Respondent of this deceptive and misleading domain name used the company name and trademarks of the Complainant, in a bad faith manner and targeted the victim by sending fraudulent e-mails and requesting for quotations while impersonating the Complainant. It can therefore deeply impact the image of the Complainant if the victims are confused regarding the source of these e-mails. Given the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant, the Complainant states that a random recipient will easily consider that the fraudulent e-mails originate from the Complainant and as a consequence, deliver the required quotations and thereafter send the required merchandise. As such, the fraudulent e-mails\/purchase order have been reported by the recipients themselves to the Complainant.<\/p>\n Also, the Complainant pointed out the absurdity of the postal address registered by the Respondent as Ile-de-France is not in Türkiye.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant highlighted that the Respondent is using a proxy\/domain privacy service for the disputed domain name. It is claimed that, as repeatedly confirmed by WIPO Panels, use of a privacy or proxy registration service to shield a respondent’s identity and elude or frustrate enforcement efforts by a legitimate complainant demonstrates bad faith use and registration of a disputed domain name.<\/p>\n In view of the explanations, the Complainant suggests that inference may be drawn therefore that in some way the Respondent hoped to capitalize on the reputation and rights of the Complainant. The registration and use of the disputed domain name was made for phishing and impersonation purposes.<\/p>\n As a conclusion, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is registered and used in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n The Complaint was filed in English, but the language of the registration agreement is Turkish. Despite the language of the registration agreement being Turkish, the Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding to be English and explained its reasons.<\/p>\n Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules stipulates that: \"[u]nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding\".<\/p>\n The Panel has duly considered the circumstances of this case. While there is a language requirement foreseen in paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel has to find the balance for ensuring that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and for the parties to be treated fairly and given a fair opportunity to present their case under Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules. The Panel is of the view that the language requirement should not cause any undue burden on the parties or undue delay (see Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui'erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd., <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2008-0293<\/a><\/span>; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, <\/em>WIPO Case No. D2006-0593<\/a><\/span>). <\/em>It has been taken into account that no Response has been filed and there was no counter request from the Respondent, and in any case, English is an internationally common language. Consequently, the Panel believes that the Respondent would not be prejudiced if English is adopted as the language of the proceeding and the request of the Complainant is accepted.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Mrs Selma Ünlü"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-30 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing “TOTAL”, “TOTAL ENERGIES” and “TotalEnergies”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n - European Union trademark n° 018395480, registered on June 25, 2021;<\/p>\n - European Union trademark n° 018392838, registered on June 26, 2021;<\/p>\n - European Union trademark n° 018308753, registered on May 28, 2021;<\/p>\n - International trademark n°1601110, registered on February 9, 2021.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the signs “TOTAL”, “TOTAL ENERGIES” and “TotalEnergies” such as the domain name <totalenergies.com> registered since March 8, 2014 and the domain name <totalenergies.fr> registered since June 29, 2017.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"total-energies-se.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n
\n
\n