DECISION
Commonwealth Fusion Systems LLC v. Yves Eveillard / EVDomains
Claim Number: FA2508002170512
PARTIES
Complainant is Commonwealth Fusion Systems LLC ("Complainant"), represented by John L. Strand of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Yves Eveillard / EVDomains ("Respondent"), represented by Jason Schaeffer of ESQwire.com, P.C., The Domain Name Law Firm, New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sparc.energy>, registered with Domain Science Kutatási Szolgáltató Korlátolt Felelosségu Társaság.
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.
Douglas M. Isenberg and Gerald M. Levine as Panelists and Adam Taylor as Chair.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 10, 2025; Forum received payment on August 11, 2025.
On August 11, 2025, Domain Science Kutatási Szolgáltató Korlátolt Felelosségu Társaság confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sparc.energy> domain name is registered with Domain Science Kutatási Szolgáltató Korlátolt Felelosségu Társaság and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain Science Kutatási Szolgáltató Korlátolt Felelosségu Társaság has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain Science Kutatási Szolgáltató Korlátolt Felelosségu Társaság 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 13, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@sparc.energy. Also on August 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 8, 2025.
On September 16, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Douglas M. Isenberg and Gerald M. Levine as Panelists and Adam Taylor as Chair.
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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION
Complainant has filed an additional submission in reply to the Response, and Respondent in turn has filed a reply thereto.
Although the Panel has the right to request additional materials, the parties have no right to submit additional materials absent the Panel's agreement. Rule 12; Forum Supplemental Rule 7.
Rule 10 of the Rules gives the Panel complete discretion on whether to accept any late-filed materials.
In exercising this discretion, the Panel is mindful that one of the promises of the Policy is to ensure the rapid review and adjudication of domain name disputes. That promise would be undermined were parties encouraged to submit replies, which may themselves engender sur-replies.
In accordance with its powers under Paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, the Panel has decided to reject much of the filings on the grounds that the material therein is repetitive, or standard rebuttal, or could have been included in the party's primary submission, or the Panel does not consider it necessary to its decision. However, the Panel has decided to admit a limited number of contentions arising from assertions in the Response that Complainant could not reasonably have anticipated, or which the Panel otherwise finds it helpful to consider. These matters are referred to below.
The Panel would add that, even if the disallowed material in the additional submissions had been admitted, it would have made no difference to the outcome of this case.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The following is a summary of Complainant's contentions:
- Complainant has rights in the SPARC mark based upon its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from continuous business use since 2018 in relation to fusion energy-related goods sold under the SPARC mark and related services including provision of information related to fusion-based energy;
- Complainant's mark has become well-known, especially within Complainant's field;
- the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark;
- the risk of confusion is heightened by the use of the top-level domain (TLD) ".energy";
- Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, including lack of a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use and not being commonly known by the disputed domain name;
- Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith;
- registration of an entire trademark as a domain name by an unrelated entity is of itself evidence of bad faith, particularly given that Respondent's discussion about Complainant on its website confirms that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark;
- the disputed domain name is one of over 400 domain names available for purchase on Respondent's own website, and registering a domain name primarily for the purpose of reselling it for profit is evidence of bad faith registration;
- Respondent's likely awareness of Complainant's mark before registering the disputed domain name, as well as the fact that Respondent is a domain reseller and the exorbitant price demanded, indicate that Respondent intended to resell the disputed domain name to Complainant for a profit;
- website visitors are likely to be confused into falsely believing that the website is affiliated with Complainant, given its focus on news related to Complainant's SPARC technology, as well as developments in Complainant's field of fusion energy;
- the website's domain name purchase invitation, as well as Respondent's excessive price and Respondent's "pattern of bad faith conduct as a domain reseller", shows that the fusion energy content on the website is a pretext for Respondent's illicit attempt to extract hundreds of thousands of dollars from Complainant; and
- the excessive price and unauthorized provision of information about Complaint indicate that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant's business.
B. Respondent
The following is a summary of Respondent's contentions:
- Respondent regularly reviews domain auction sites and invests in domain names that are primarily related to electronic vehicles, energy saving and alternative energy;
- Respondent has offered many "EV"-related, and other, domain names for sale at substantial six- and seven-figure prices;
- Respondent, who invests for long-term appreciation, still holds 99% of his original portfolio, which he is now marketing more intensely with a view to his imminent retirement as a physician;
- Respondent considered that the disputed domain name was an attractive and inherently valuable domain name being offered for sale by its prior owner and which made sense as a potential development project or a brand, not because of any trademark, but because it contained the widely used "sparc," also associated with the English word "spark", in conjunction with the .energy TLD suffix, and could be a readily recognizable brand for multiple uses including an energy food, a health company, a financial services product/firm, an energy company or a supplier of electric vehicle or other products;
- because the registrar of the disputed domain name defaulted to a pay per click ("PPC") parking page system, which Respondent generally prefers not to use, and Respondent had difficulty transferring the disputed domain name to his preferred registrar, Respondent investigated the options and elected to resolve the disputed domain name to the registrar's free AI website building service, which generated informational and newsworthy content based on the keywords in the disputed domain name and which Respondent considered would be a good placeholder until he could manage the disputed domain name - because the service was free, easy to set up and it automatically updated weekly without requiring Respondent's involvement;
- Respondent had no reason to believe that the AI was presenting any improper information "as it was creating news and information about the SPARC and energy initiatives", or that the informational content would be objectionable to any party;
- Respondent never intended to target Complainant, of which he only became aware when he received its unsolicited email of July 23, 2025, to which he responded that he was evaluating use and deployment of the disputed domain name, but would consider serious offers;
- at that time, Respondent was not certain that he would sell the disputed domain name;
- comparable .energy domain names are being offered for sale at substantial six-figure prices;
- the brief two- to three-week use of the disputed domain name for an AI website shows that Respondent was not targeting Complainant, as the content focused on fusion energy "and SPARC initiatives" more broadly;
- there is extensive third-party use of "sparc" including 25 United States trade marks for the word SPARC on its own, as well as many global trademarks, extensive online use and incorporation into over 100 domain names;
- there is notable third-party use of "sparc" in the energy sector;
- Complainant's own trademark was subject to a likelihood of confusion objection by the USPTO based on prior similar marks including in the energy sector, which belies Complainant's claims of exclusivity/notoriety;
- Respondent possesses rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
- registration of an acronym, generic or brandable term, such as the disputed domain name, of itself establishes a respondent's legitimate interest provided the domain name was not registered with a trademark in mind and there is no evidence of targeting or passing off;
- the combination of "sparc", a creative spelling of "spark", and "energy", is obvious;
- there are many suggestive and descriptive uses for "sparc energy" unrelated to Complainant's highly specialized fusion reactor;
- there is no evidence that Respondent knew of or registered the disputed domain name because of Complainant's limited and specialized development of its fusion product, and there is hardly widespread consumer association of "sparc" with Complainant;
- a Google search for "sparc" returns myriad third-party results;
- Complainant, which is known as Commonwealth Fusion Systems, uses various acronyms including "CFS" for its name, as well as "SPARC", "ARC" and HTS";
- Complainant glosses over the fact that a third-party owned the disputed domain name after Complainant's employee allowed it to expire and so Respondent, or anyone else buying the disputed domain name in auction, had no reason to believe that it was once owned by Complainant;
- Respondent's pattern of descriptive domain names, including many other "EV" or "energy"-related domain names indicates that he did not register the disputed domain name to target a trademark;
- the fact that Respondent is a generic domain name reseller with numerous similar domain names of itself constitutes rights or legitimate interests
- there is no evidence of bad faith registration or use as there is no specific proof of intent to profit from or target Complainant's mark for the reasons given above;
- ironically, by seeking to avoid PPC, Respondent chose what he thought would be a fair and innocuous presentation of informational AI-generated content, but this is now being held against him by Complainant;
- as is the case with UDRP cases involving PPC links, the appearance of information and articles on an AI-generated page that relates to a complainant is not necessarily proof of a respondent's bad faith;
- UDRP panels have held that automatically-generated PPC relating to a party do not provide any basis to infer targeting, and that such links do not constitute bad faith where the respondent had no input into their selection;
- admittedly there may be many AI uses and cases that specifically target parties in bad faith and each case will need to be evaluated on its own merits; and
- Respondent did not offer the disputed domain name for sale to Complainant or anyone else, and Respondent's response to Complainant's unsolicited inquiry, based on third-party listings for similarly high value .energy domain names, is not evidence of bad faith
C. Additional Submissions
The following is a summary of Complainant's additional submissions insofar as admitted by the Panel:
- Respondent's assertion in the Response that he registered the disputed domain name solely because it was an inherently valuable domain name that appeared to be brandable contradicts Respondent's email of July 24, 2025, which indicated that he planned to use the disputed domain name in conjunction with a "platform" and "long-term initiative" or business venture, thereby casting doubt on Respondent's veracity;
- evidence of third-party use of "sparc" outside Complainant's industry is irrelevant as Respondent presented no evidence that he intended to use the disputed domain name in relation to such other alleged uses;
- Respondent has produced no evidence showing third-party use of "sparc" in the fusion or nuclear energy fields, nor any evidence that he planned to use the disputed domain name for any purpose other than providing information on Complainant and fusion, as he originally did;
- Respondent's attempt to resell the disputed domain name for upwards of 2,000 times higher than his out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith; and
- Respondent cannot evade responsibility for previous conduct by updating the website after Complainant filed this proceeding, or by blaming an AI website builder, as responsibility must lie with the human creator or author.
The following is a summary of Respondent's additional submissions insofar as admitted by the Panel:
- Respondent's "puffery and language" in response to Complainant's inquiry is proper, and not dispositive of Respondent's intent, as parties engaged in good faith discussions are entitled to try and "maximize the price"; and
- in view of the extensive third-party evidence of use of "sparc" and the natural connection between the words "sparc" and "energy," it is understandable that at the time Respondent purchased the disputed domain name because of its inherent value and not because of Complainant, and Respondent's later discovery of the extensive third-party use both inside and outside the broader energy sector supports his decision to invest in the disputed domain name in good faith.
FINDINGS
Complainant manufactures high temperature superconducting magnets. Complainant is building what it describes as "the world's first commercially-relevant net energy fusion machine", also known as a "tokamak", which is named "SPARC" and will pave the way for the world's first fusion power plant called "ARC".
Complainant operates a website at www.cfs.energy.
The disputed domain name was originally registered by Complainant's former co-founder and Chief Technology Officer on an unknown date. It expired at some point between January 28, 2025, and April 26, 2025, when it was acquired by a third party.
Respondent, a licensed physician who has invested in domain names since 2007, bought the domain name on an auction website on or around May 8, 2025, for USD 262.17.
The disputed domain name was used to resolve to a "SPARC"-branded website that bore the heading "SPARC Real-Time Fusion Energy Insights / Stay updated with AI-summarized breakthroughs in fusion energy and advanced materials", alongside a prominent form inviting users to submit an "inquiry or offer for sparc.energy". The site went on to provide detailed information about various developments in fusion energy including extensive reference to Complainant's SPARC project. Another form near the bottom of the page invited users to "[r]each out for inquiries about acquiring sparc.energy or fusion energy and advanced materials news, insights."
On July 23, 2025, Complainant emailed Respondent stating: "I'm reaching out as our company is interested in the sparc.energy domain. It was previously maintained by an employee who has since left our company. Can you please advise if it is available and what the cost is?"
Respondent responded on July 24, 2025, as follows:
"Thank you for your interest. We've noted your organization among a growing list of serious parties evaluating SPARC.energy.
The platform has evolved faster than anticipated—not only as a long-term initiative, but as a golden opportunity now generating increased urgency across both public and private sectors. What began as a gradual rollout is becoming a more accelerated landscape.
Given this momentum, we're reassessing our deployment strategy and revisiting valuation parameters.
At this stage, we would consider serious, binding offers in the mid to high six-figure range [Respondent's emphasis], in alignment with the asset's strategic potential and current visibility.
We recognize the importance of timing — and this golden opportunity now speaks for itself.
We look forward to a meaningful and harmonious alignment."
On receipt of the Complaint on August 11, 2025, Respondent changed the website to a holding page with the following prominent disclaimer: "Independent Platform ... No Affiliations. Not Affiliated with Commonwealth Fusion Systems or cfs.energy or any other 'Sparc' technologies, entities or contexts".
When reviewed by the Panel on September 26, 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a "Coming soon" page stating that the website was temporarily offline pending updates and that there was "[n]o affiliation with Commonwealth Fusion Systems or cfs.energy".
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the SPARC mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's SPARC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is unnecessary for the Panel to consider this element in view of the Panel's finding under the third element below.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, relying particularly on: the discussion about Complainant on Respondent's AI-generated website; Respondent's alleged "pattern of bad faith conduct as a domain reseller"; and the allegedly "excessive price" sought by Respondent for the disputed domain name. For its part, Respondent strongly denies prior knowledge of Complainant's mark.
The Panel notes the following.
First, the term "sparc" is in relatively common use, both as a play on the English word "spark" and as an acronym, including in energy-related industries, and there are multiple trade marks for SPARC in the United States and worldwide.
Second, Complainant, which has produced only a few articles in highly specialist publications, has not established that its mark is well-known, at least outside its specialist industry.
Third, while it appears to the Panel that, by analogy with the treatment of automatically-generated PPC links (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 3.5), respondents should not generally be entitled to disclaim responsibility for AI-generated content, nonetheless, in all the circumstances here, the Panel considers that the AI-generated references to Complainant, albeit in conjunction with an invitation to buy the disputed domain name, do not of themselves establish Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. In particular, Respondent has put forward what, on the face of it, appears to be a plausible explanation, namely that he opted to use the AI "news and information" service only after registration of the disputed domain name and as an alternative to PPC links.
Fourth, Complainant has put forward no evidence in support of its assertion that Respondent engaged in a "pattern of bad faith conduct as a domain reseller". Indeed, at times, the Complaint veers towards an attack on the concept of domain name trading, which of itself is legitimate (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 3.1.1). In any case, Complainant has not identified any Respondent domain names reflecting well-known trademarks.
Fifth, while Respondent did indeed propose a substantial price for the disputed domain name, this was in response to Complainant's inquiry. In the Panel's view, the level of price sought by Respondent does not signify that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to target Complainant, but more likely reflects a legitimate desire on the part of Respondent to "cash in", having been approached by what appeared to be a substantial entity that was keen to buy the disputed domain name, which it formerly owned.
Sixth, while the comments in Respondent's email of July 24, 2025, which appear to imply that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in connection some sort of unspecified long-term initiative, do not sit easily with the suggestions in the Response that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for (legitimate) resale, nonetheless the Panel accepts Respondent's assertions that its email was mere "puffery" to try and maximize the price under the circumstances, rather than an indicator of bad faith intent.
Accordingly, for the above reasons, the Panel does not consider that Complainant has established that, on the balance of probabilities, Respondent was likely aware of Complainant on registration of the disputed domain name.
The Panel would add that Complainant has not contended that Respondent should be treated as a professional domain name registrant to whom a higher standard of research should applied before registering a domain name (see e.g., WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 3.2.3); nor does the record contain any evidence on this issue. Accordingly, the Panel has not considered it.
The Panel concludes that Complainant has failed to establish that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Given that the Policy requirements of registration and use in bad faith are cumulative, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider whether the content of the AI-generated website, or any of the other circumstances of the case, amount to use in bad faith.
DECISION
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sparc.energy> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Adam Taylor, Chair
Douglas M. Isenberg, Panelist
Gerald M. Levine, Panelist
Dated: October 9, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page