Alliant Energy Corporation v. Grupo S.A. Ltd. Co.
Claim Number: FA2302002033663
Complainant is Alliant Energy Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Thomas L. Holt of Perkins Coie LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Grupo S.A. Ltd. Co. (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <allianenergy.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 February 27, 2023; Forum received payment on February 27, 2023.
On February 28, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <allianenergy.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 March 1, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 21, 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@allianenergy.com. Also on March 1, 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 March 23, 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 <allianenergy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <allianenergy.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <allianenergy.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 a registration for the ALLIANT ENERGY mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 3,063,770, registered February 28, 2006).
Respondent registered the <allianenergy.com> domain name on November 28, 2004, and uses it to compete 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. 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 based on registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”)
Respondent’s <allianenergy.com> domain name uses a slight misspelling of Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark and adds the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Klein Tools, Inc. v chenxinqi, FA 1617328 (Forum July 6, 2018) (finding that the <klentools.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the KLEIN TOOLS mark as it contains the entire KLEIN TOOLS mark and merely omits the letter “l” and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”)). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <allianenergy.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 contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <allianenergy.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its ALLIANT ENERGY mark. The WHOIS information of record names “Redacted for Privacy” 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 has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same).
Complainant asserts that Respondent fails to use the <allianenergy.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use, and alleges that Respondent is using the domain name to commercially profit from advertisements for products/services that compete with Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to sell products that directly compete with Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”) Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage, showing that Respondent uses it to offer competing services. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <allianenergy.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to misdirect third parties for its own commercial gain. Using a disputed domain name to divert consumers to a competing website for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”) Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also argues that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark when it registered the <allianenergy.com> domain name. To support this assertion, Complainant points to its trademark registrations as well as its commercial presence and reputation. The Panel agrees, noting Respondent’s direct competition with Complainant, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See iFinex Inc. v. xu shuaiwei, FA 1760249 (Forum January 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”).
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 <allianenergy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: March 24, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page