DECISION

 

PowerPlan, Inc. v. Dan Moorehead / Power Web5

Claim Number: FA2510002186206

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PowerPlan, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Meghan C. Killian of Duane Morris, LLP, United States. Respondent is Dan Moorehead / Power Web5 ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <powerplan.ai>, registered with Porkbun 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 30, 2025; Forum received payment on October 30, 2025.

 

On October 31, 2025, Porkbun LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <powerplan.ai> domain name is registered with Porkbun LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Porkbun LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Porkbun 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 November 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 24, 2025, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@powerplan.ai. Also on November 3, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.

 

At Respondent's request, the deadline for a Response was extended to November 28, 2025, pursuant to Paragraph 5(b) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"). Respondent subsequently requested an additional extension of 20 days pursuant to Paragraph 5(e) of the Rules and Paragraph 6(a)(ii) of Forum's Supplemental Rules; Forum granted that request and extended the Response deadline to December 18, 2025.

 

A Response was received on December 19, 2025, one day after the extended deadline.

 

On December 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 "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: DEFICIENT RESPONSE

The Response was submitted after the twice-extended deadline. However, Respondent is self-represented; the Response appears to be otherwise compliant with the Rules, apart from its untimeliness; it was received before the matter was referred to the Panel; and Complainant does not appear to have been prejudiced by the untimely submission. The Panel therefore exercises its discretion to accept and consider the deficient Response.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a provider of financial and investment planning and analysis software and related services, including software that leverages AI capabilities. Complainant states that it has been the subject of "widespread unsolicited media coverage," substantiating this assertion with copies of two articles from 2018 and one from 2025. Complainant has used the POWERPLAN mark since at least as early as February 2012 and owns a longstanding United States trademark registration for POWERPLAN in standard character form.

 

The disputed domain name <powerplan.ai> was registered in November 2022. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. Complainant alleges that the domain name is being used for "a website that offers services and goods highly related to Complainant's financial and investment software services and related goods and services, and is directly within the industry in which Complainant operates." Complainant states that it sent cease and desist letters to Respondent in July and September, demanding that Respondent cease use of the POWERPLAN mark and the disputed domain name, but did not receive a response. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not connected or affiliated with Complainant, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <powerplan.ai> is identical and confusingly similar to its POWERPLAN mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states that it has offered a low-code AI-assisted application development platform under the Power Web5 AI brand since at least 2022. The modules within this platform include Power Sheet AI, Power GPT AI, Power CRM AI, Power Bot AI, Power Invest AI, and Power Plan AI. Respondent notes that the disputed domain name <powerplan.ai> is not being used for a standalone website; instead, it redirects users to a page on Respondent's primary website at <powerweb5.ai> devoted to the Power Plan AI module within Power Web5 AI. Respondent asserts that it registered the disputed domain name <powerplan.ai> for this purpose, and that it was unaware of Complainant at that time. Respondent also distinguishes its offerings from those of Complainant, describing its platform as "broad AI/low-code," while Complainant offers what Respondent describes as "niche utility fixed‑asset planning/accounting software for power/utility companies." Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel declines to reach a finding as to rights or legitimate interests.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <powerplan.ai> incorporates Complainant's registered POWERPLAN trademark, adding the ".ai" top-level domain. The addition of a top-level domain is normally disregarded for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Proofpoint, Inc. v. Timur El Gohary / Enface FZE LLC, FA 2104113 (Forum July 19, 2024) (finding <proofpoint.ai> identical to PROOFPOINT); Havtech Group, LLC v. Katie Oleary, FA 2064258 (Forum Oct. 27, 2023) (finding <havtech.ai> identical to HAVTECH). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of registration and use in bad faith, the Panel declines to address the question of rights or legitimate interests.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(ii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was registered "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." To have registered a domain name in bad faith, Respondent must have been aware of Complainant or its mark when registering the domain name, and the registration must in some way have been targeted at Complainant or its mark. See, e.g., Tarot Tap, Inc. v. Zaichen Huang, FA 2186386 (Forum Dec. 12, 2025).

 

Respondent claims to have selected the disputed domain name <powerplan.ai> because it corresponds to the name of a module within Respondent's application development platform, and to have been unaware of Complainant at that time. The Panel considers these claims to be both plausible and consistent with the evidence before the Panel. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent has requested a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. The Panel declines to make such a finding.

 

DECISION

Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <powerplan.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: December 22, 2025