Alliant Energy Corporation v. Fatou Camara
Claim Number: FA2301002028397
Complainant is Alliant Energy Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas L. Holt of Perkins Coie LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Fatou Camara (“Respondent”), Gambia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alliiantenergy.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2023; Forum received payment on January 20, 2023.
On January 20, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 January 23, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 2023 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@alliiantenergy.com. Also on January 23, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 17, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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. Respondent’s <alliiantenergy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Alliant Energy Corporation, is a public utility holding company. Complainant holds registrations for the ALLIANT ENERGY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,063,770, February 28, 2006).
Respondent registered the <alliiantenergy.com> on October 22, 2022, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.
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. 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through registrations with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”)
Respondent’s <alliiantenergy.com> domain name uses the ALLIANT ENERGY mark and simply adds an extra “i” and a GTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputes domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Twitch Interactive, Inc. v. Antonio Teggi, FA 1626528 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (finding the <twitcch.tv> domain name confusingly similar to the TWITCH TV trademark because the domain name consisted of a common misspelling of the mark by merely adding the letter “c”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <alliiantenergy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and has not been authorized or licensed rights to use the ALLIANT ENERGY mark. The WHOIS information lists “Fatou Camara” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and thus lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See BILD Gmbh & Co. KG v. James Cousin, FA 1641283 (Forum Nov. 11, 2015) (“Respondent has failed to respond in this proceeding, and has not provided any evidence to indicate it owns a mark identical to the <bildpl.us> domain name. Such a lack of evidence is sufficient to allow this Panel to find Respondent has no rights to such a mark.”)
Complainant also contends that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use by using it to impersonate Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant through fraudulent emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be 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)). Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent uses the <alliiantenergy.com> to pose as an employee of Complainant. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s intentional misspelling (typosquatting) of the ALLIANT ENERGY mark in the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name, and its use to send fraudulent emails, demonstrate bad faith. See Alliant Energy Corp. v. Ifeanyichukwu Ajali, FA 2003013 (Forum Aug. 2, 2022) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alliiantenergy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page