Dominion Energy, Inc. v. Alexander Alexander, Slammin Media Inc.
Claim Number: FA2204001993173
Complainant is Dominion Energy, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Mary Dalton Baril of McGuireWoods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Alexander Alexander, Slammin Media Inc. (“Respondent”), Kentucky, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <careers-dominionenergy.online>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 20, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 25, 2022.
On April 20, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <careers-dominionenergy.online> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On April 28, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@careers-dominionenergy.online. Also on April 28, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On May 24, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts trademark rights in DOMINION ENERGY. Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:
1. Complainant is an energy producer and the owner of United States Patent & Trademark Office Reg. No. 2,096,938 registered on September 16, 1997, for DOMINION ENERGY, the trademark under which Complainant does business;
2. there is no relationship between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating the trademark; and
3. the disputed domain name was registered on February 12, 2022 and resolves to a website that purports to list job opportunities with Complainant.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides proof of its registration of the trademark with the USPTO, a national trademark authority and so the Panel finds that it has established rights in DOMINION ENERGY.
The disputed domain name prefixes and hyphenates the descriptive word “careers”, to the trademark and adds the gTLD, “.online”. In the case of Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) the panel wrote that “[w]here a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.” Furthermore, countless UDRP decision have held that in most cases the gTLD can be ignored for the purposes of comparison.
Both additions are trivial for the purposes of comparison and the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).
In consequence of these proceedings the Registrar disclosed the name of the underlying domain name registrant as “Alexander Alexander, Slammin Media Inc.” There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which purports to list job opportunities with Complainant. On the one hand it appears to imitate a site maintained by Complainant but on the other it, in Complainant’s words, “prominently displays the Dominion Energy logo (Reg. No. 5,292,987), profanely modified such that the stylized “D” resembles male genitalia.” Further, Complainant submits that Respondent operates the domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme and, in particular, uses the name to “dupe would-be job applicants into providing sensitive, personally identifiable information, such as the applicants name, date of birth, and social security number in order to generate illicit profits.”
The use of the disputed domain name clearly does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks a right or interest in the disputed domain name. The onus shifts to Respondent. Absent a Response that onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.
Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.
The four specified circumstances are:
‘(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.’
The Panel finds that Respondent’s conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The likelihood is that the resolving website exists for commercial gain by means of some nefarious scheme. In terms of the Policy the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name was intended to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Wells Fargo & Co. v. Mihael, FA 605221 (Forum Jan. 16, 2006) (“Complainant asserts,…that soon after the disputed domain name was registered, Respondent arranged for it to resolve to a web site closely resembling a legitimate site of Complainant, called a ‘doppelganger’ (for double or duplicate) page, the purpose of which is to deceive Complainant’s customers into providing to Respondent their login identification, social security numbers, and/or account information and Personal Identification Numbers…. The Panel finds that Respondent’s behavior, as alleged, constitutes bad faith registration and use of the subject domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
The Panel finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <careers-dominionenergy.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist
Dated: May 26, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page