DECISION

 

Fluence Energy, LLC v. Jo Jo Chasta

Claim Number: FA2506002160138

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Fluence Energy, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Bryce J. Maynard of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Jo Jo Chasta ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <fluenceenergycareers.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 11, 2025; Forum received payment on June 11, 2025.

 

On June 11, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fluenceenergycareers.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 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 2025 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@fluenceenergycareers.com. Also on June 13, 2025, 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 July 7, 2025, 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant and its predecessors in interest have used the FLUENCE Mark without interruption in connection with energy storage services, electrical storage services, and related energy services since at least as early as 2018.

 

Complainant owns several U.S. federal trademark registrations for the FLUENCE mark.

 

Complainant also owns several domain names containing the FLUENCE mark, including <fluenceenergy.com>, which is highly similar to the <fluenceenergycareers.com> domain name at issue in this dispute.

 

Respondent's domain name is virtually identical to Complainant's registered FLUENCE mark. Respondent's use of Complainant's registered FLUENCE mark, with the addition of the generic terms "careers" and "energy," creates a domain name virtually identical to Complainant's mark for purposes of the Policy. The addition of a generic term and a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. The domain name <fluenceenergycareers.com> does not currently resolve to an active web site. Therefore, Respondent cannot claim that is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has used the <fluenceenergycareers.com> domain to impersonate Complainant's HR department and send phishing e-mails to job candidates, including fake offer letters and references to Complainant's official web site. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is also no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name or that Respondent has acquired any trademark or service marks in the domain name. Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use Complainant's FLUENCE mark as part of Respondent's domain name. Respondent has also not made any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name <fluenceenergycareers.com> as this domain does not resolve to an active web site and Respondent's used of the domain name to further an email phishing scheme is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name per Policy ¶4(c)(iii).

 

Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Respondent is using the domain name to send fake job offers to unsuspecting job seekers in an effort to acquire personal information for financial gain. Respondent is not currently using the domain name to resolve to an active web site. Panels have consistently found that the passive holding of a web site is in itself evidence of bad faith. Finally, the fact that Respondent sought to conceal its identity by registering the domain name through a privacy service is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in FLUENCE.

 

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 FLUENCE trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email to facilitate an email phishing scheme.

 

DISCUSSION

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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its FLUENCE trademark. Any relevant national trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's FLUENCE trademark followed by the suggestive terms "energy" and "careers," with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish <fluenceenergycareers.com> from FLUENCE for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <fluenceenergycareers.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's FLUENCE trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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 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 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 WHOIS information for <fluenceenergycareers.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Jo Jo Chasta" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <fluenceenergycareers.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent currently holds <fluenceenergycareers.com> passively as the domain name does not address an active website. Nevertheless, Respondent uses the confusingly similar <fluenceenergycareers.com> domain name to host email that facilitates an email phishing scheme. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name for such purpose 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) regarding the at-issue domain name. 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)).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent's lack of rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <fluenceenergycareers.com>. 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent capitalized on the confusion it created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark. Respondent, via email originating from <fluenceenergycareers.com>, impersonated Complainant's human resource department and sent fake job offers to unsuspecting job seekers in an effort to acquire personal information for financial gain. The fact that Respondent engaged in email fraud via the <fluenceenergycareers.com> domain name leaves no doubt as to Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name. See Emdeon Business Services, LLC v. HR Emdeon Careers, FA 1629459 (Forum Aug. 14, 2015) (finding that the respondent had engaged in an email phishing scheme indicating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), where respondent was coordinating the disputed domain name to send emails to internet users and advising them that they had been selected for a job interview with the complainant and was persuading the users to disclose personal information in the process); see also 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 per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FLUENCE mark when it registered <fluenceenergycareers.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the mark's notoriety; given the inclusion of suggestive terms in the at-issue domain name and the domain name's similarity to one of Complainant's genuine domain names; and given Respondent's use of the domain name to impersonate Complainant in email to facilitate fraud. Notably, Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in FLUENCE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, 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).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <fluenceenergycareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 8, 2025