DECISION

 

Alliant Energy Corporation v. Zain Hosting / Zain Ashfaq Ahmed

Claim Number: FA2309002063297

PARTIES

Complainant is Alliant Energy Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Jennifer Budzien, Wisconsin, USA. Respondent is Zain Hosting / Zain Ashfaq Ahmed ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <alliantener-gy.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 25, 2023; Forum received payment on September 25, 2023.

 

On September 26, 2023, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <alliantener-gy.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 September 27, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 17, 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@alliantener-gy.com. Also on September 27, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.

 

On October 18, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that, established in 1998, it is a public utility holding company and the parent of Alliant Energy Corporate Services. It delivers energy solutions and exceptional service that its customers and communities count on – safely, efficiently and responsibly. Complainant serves approximately 950,000 electric and 410,000 natural gas customers throughout Iowa and Wisconsin. Complainant asserts rights in the ALLIANT ENERGY mark through its registration in the United States in 2006.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ALLIANT ENERGY mark as it consists of a misspelling of the mark (a hyphen is inserted in the term "energy"), merely adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent's use of the mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use through the disputed domain name. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain to send emails impersonating a member of Complainant's staff for purposes of submitting fraudulent purchase orders that display Complainant's mark and logo.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent has engaged in a fraudulent email phishing scheme, attempting to pass itself off as Complainant. Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: "the domain was registered by a client, so we have checked these documents and you can give this domain to the complainant".

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. 

 

However the Panel notes, obiter dictum, that the evidence presented in the Complaint would appear to support Complainant's allegations.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

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."

 

In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <alliantener-gy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 18, 2023