Alliant Energy Corporation v. See PrivacyGuardian.org / Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA2308002056442
Complainant is Alliant Energy Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jennifer Budzien of Alliant Energy Corporation, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org / Domain Administrator (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <alliantienergyinc.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.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2023; Forum received payment on August 7, 2023.
On August 8, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <alliantienergyinc.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 August 10, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 30, 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@alliantienergyinc.com. Also on August 10, 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 August 31, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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
i) Complainant is a public utility holding company and the parent of Alliant Energy Corporate Services, established in 1998. It delivers energy solutions and exceptional service. Complainant has rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,063,770, registered on February 28, 2006). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark as it merely adds an extra “i” between the terms “alliant” and “energy” and “inc” after “energy.”
ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark or any confusingly similar mark or to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email phishing and fraud scheme targeting Complainant’s client.
iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. By registering the disputed domain name that infringes Complainant’s mark and using the disputed domain name to redirect third parties for its own commercial gain, Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address to impersonate a member of Complainant’s staff for purposes of submitting fraudulent purchase orders. This fraudulent and criminal activity is being perpetrated through the disputed domain name to deceive third parties into believing that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights when registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a response in this proceeding.
1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 17, 2023.
2. Complainant has established rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,063,770, registered on February 28, 2006).
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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”).
Complainant asserts rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,063,770, registered on February 28, 2006). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registration with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has established rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues the disputed domain name <alliantienergyinc.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark as it merely adds an extra “i” between the terms “alliant” and “energy” and “inc” after “energy.” The Panel finds that the addition of a letter and a generic term such as “inc” and gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.); see also 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.”). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then 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 Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Complainant has never licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant’s mark or any confusingly similar mark or to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s mark. When a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name 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). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “See PrivacyGuardian.org / Domain Administrator,” and Complainant asserts there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the ALLIANT ENERGY mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant further argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to send phishing emails impersonating Complainant’s employee. Using a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant’s employee for the purpose of furthering a phishing campaign may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) (“Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant’s CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant’s ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”). Complainant provides copies of emails showing that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address to impersonate a member of Complainant’s staff for purposes of submitting fraudulent purchase orders. The Panel finds that this fraudulent activity is being perpetrated through the disputed domain name to deceive third parties into believing that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s fraudulent activity fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent registered the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant’s employee and send phishing emails for Respondent’s financial gain. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with the intent to disrupt business by furthering an email phishing campaign can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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). The Panel recalls that Complainant provides copies of emails showing Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with an email address to impersonate a member of Complainant’s staff for purposes of submitting fraudulent purchase orders.
Complainant further argues Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights when registering the disputed domain name. Use of a mark to confuse users where a respondent impersonates a complainant can demonstrate actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark at registration and show bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) (“[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used that as an email address to pass itself off as Complainant shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration.”). The Panel also notes that Complainant’s ALLIANT ENERGY mark has been used in commerce in connection with delivery of energy solutions and exceptional service. Complainant serves approximately 950,000 electric and 410,000 natural gas customers throughout Iowa and Wisconsin in the United States. Complainant has expended significant sums of money and substantial effort extensively promoting and advertising its goods and services under the ALLIANT ENERGY mark. As a result of Complainant’s advertising, promotion and sale of its goods and services under the ALLIANT ENERGY mark, the ALLIANT ENERGY mark has generated substantial goodwill and has come to be associated by members of the relevant consuming public with high quality products and services offered by Complainant. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant’s mark and the manner of use of the disputed domain name that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain in bad faith under 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 <alliantienergyinc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 2, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page