Alliant Energy Corporation v. Christian Uzuh
Claim Number: FA2108001960029
Complainant is Alliant Energy Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas L. Holt of Perkins Coie LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Christian Uzuh (“Respondent”), Nigeria.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alliantsenergy.us>, 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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 17, 2021; the Forum received payment on August 17, 2021.
On August 17, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <alliantsenergy.us> 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 the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 18, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 7, 2021 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@alliantsenergy.us. Also on August 18, 2021, 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 September 8, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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.
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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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
1. Complainant offers energy solutions to thousands of customers throughout Iowa and Wisconsin. Complainant has rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,063,770, registered Feb. 28, 2006).
2. Respondent’s <alliantsenergy.us>[i] domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the letter “s” after the word “ALLIANT.”
3. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the ALLIANT ENERGY mark in any way.
4. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant to fulfill fake orders and extend lines of credit.
5. Respondent registered and uses the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain.
6. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark due to the long-standing use of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the ALLIANT ENERGY mark. Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name and that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant claims to have rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with a copy of its USPTO registration for the ALLIANT ENERGY mark (e.g. Reg. No. 3,063,770, registered Feb. 28, 2006). Therefore, the Complainant has shown rights in a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <alliantsenergy.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark. Registration of a domain name that contains a mark in its entirety and adds an additional letter does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See LodgeWorks Partners, L.P. v. Isaac Goldstein / POSTE RESTANTE, FA 1717300 (Forum Apr. 5, 2017) (“The Panel agrees; Respondent’s <archerhotels.com> is confusingly similar to complainant’s ARCHER HOTEL mark.”). Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the letter “s” after the word “ALLIANT.” Therefore, that Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name. This allegation must be supported with a prima facie showing by Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). After a complainant successfully makes a prima facie case, a respondent is faced with the burden of proving it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. In Swedish Match UK Ltd. v. Admin, Domain, FA 873137 (Forum Feb. 13, 2007), the panel held that when a complainant produces a prima facie case, the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c); see also Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (“For the purposes of this sub paragraph, however, it is sufficient for the Complainant to show a prima facie case and the burden of proof is then shifted on to the shoulders of Respondent.) The Panel holds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the ALLIANT ENERGY mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by a domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name lists the registrant as ”Christian Uzuh” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the ALLIANT ENERGY mark or was commonly known by the domain name. Therefore, Respondent is not commonly known by the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent is attempting to pass off as Complainant to fulfill fake orders and extend lines of credit. Use of a domain name incorporating the mark of another to pass off as that party and offer similar services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) (“Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Here, Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s <alliantsenergy.us> domain name that shows services and products related to Complainant’s business. Therefore, Panel agrees that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) or (iv).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name in bad faith as Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant for commercial gain. Registration of a domain to pass of as a complainant for commercial gain may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). Complainant has provided the Panel with screenshots of Respondent’s <alliantsenergy.us> domain name that shows services and products related to Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel holds that Respondent registered and uses the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark at the time of registering the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name. Actual knowledge can adequately demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum Jan. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s prior knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s BITFINEX trademark as well as from Respondent’s use of its trademark laden domain name to direct internet traffic to a website which is a direct competitor of Complainant”). To support this assertion, Complainant points to its trademark registrations along with the fact that Respondent impersonates Complainant to further a fraudulent scam. The Panel agrees that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s right in its mark, which would support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alliantsenergy.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: September 20, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page