Alliant Energy Corporation v. Jim wright
Claim Number: FA2305002046976
Complainant is Alliant Energy Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer Budzien, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Jim wright (“Respondent”), Wisconsin, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alliantienergy.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 31, 2023; Forum received payment on May 31, 2023.
On June 1, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <alliantienergy.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 June 1, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 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@alliantienergy.com. Also on June 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 June 23, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant, Alliant Energy Corporation, is a public utility holding company.
Complainant asserts rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through multiple trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <alliantienergy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the ALLIANT ENERGY mark as it uses the entire mark with the mere addition of an extra “i”.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <alliantienergy.com> domain name since Respondent possess no trade or service mark registrations relating to the ALLIANT ENERGY mark. Complainant also has not authorized or licensed rights to Respondent to use the ALLIANT ENERGY mark. Further, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant by impersonating an employee through emails.
Respondent registered and uses the <alliantienergy.com> domain name in bad faith by intentionally seeking to redirect Internet traffic for commercial gain through use of the mark in the at-issue domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY trademark.
Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate fraud via deceptive email.
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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of the ALLIANT ENERGY mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 <alliantienergy.com> domain name contains Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY trademark less its domain name impermissible space, with the letter “I” inserted into the mark, and with all followed by the “.com” top-level domain name. Respondent’s alterations to Complainant’s trademark in creating the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <alliantienergy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY trademark pursuant to 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”).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Jim Wright” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <alliantienergy.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <alliantienergy.com> domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”).
Respondent uses <alliantienergy.com> to pass itself off as Complainant by sending email from the at-issue domain name that is crafted to impersonate one of Complainant’s staff members. Respondent thereby attempts to deceive the recipient into falsely believing they are dealing with Complainant. Disguised as Complainant, the fraudulent email pretends to be furthering legitimate business on behalf of Complainant. Respondent may thus trick third parties into giving up information, funds, or other benefits to Respondent. Such use of the domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Emerson Electric Co. v. Adilcon Rocha, FA 1735949 (Forum July 11, 2017) (finding that respondent’s attempt to pass off as complainant through emails does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services and, as such, respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) (”Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As discussed above regarding Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name in connection with an email phishing scheme that is ultimately aimed at defrauding third parties who falsely believe they are dealing with Complainant. Respondent’s use of <alliantienergy.com> to assist Respondent in defrauding third parties shows Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the <alliantienergy.com> domain name under the Policy. See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also, Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) (Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant’s customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent’s bad faith under the Policy.).
Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the string in a domain name hoping that internet users will inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark or, as appears to be the case here, will read the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with its target trademark. Although misspelled through the inclusion of a superfluous letter “I”, Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY trademark is nevertheless clearly recognizable when reading Respondent’s <alliantienergy.com> domain name. Notably, the second “I” contained in Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name may easily be overlooked if the domain name is not carefully examined when read. Internet users reading the domain name as part of an email address or otherwise may thus mistake the confusingly similar domain name for Complainant’s genuine domain name. Indeed, that is Respondent’s intent. Respondent’s typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also, Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” which is evidence of bad faith registration and use).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark when Respondent registered <alliantienergy.com> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident given the mark’s notoriety and given Respondent’s scheme to use the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant via email. See, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <alliantienergy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: June 26, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page