The Complainant is CenterPoint Energy, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) (“Complainant”), represented by Fibbe Lightner, LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245334071 / Liza ducharme, United States (hereinafter jointly and severally referred to as “Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 29, 2019. On October 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 30, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 1, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 6, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 11, 2019. The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on December 16, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a United States company operating in the field of energy delivery, including electric transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution, energy services operations to millions of businesses and households in the United States. Complainant is the registrant of the domain name Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the mark and logo CENTERPOINT ENERGY issued by the United States Patent and trademark office, the earliest of which issued on August 19, 2003. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 26, 2019. The disputed domain name is passively held and does not resolve or link to any onsite presence. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings “A Panel shall 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 directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The domain name consists of Complainant’s registered trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY, with an “r” inserted between the “n” and the second “e” in the word, “energy”. As there is no common English word associated with the spelling “enrergy”, the disputed domain name appears to be a typographical error, and one which, while easily made by a typist, is not readily distinguishable from the correctly spelled word. Accordingly, the panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to resolve to a web site, nor making any other commercial or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. Where a disputed domain name is being passively held and it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name to which the disputed domain name could be put, UDRP panels have found that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel notes the nature of the disputed domain name and finds that in the present case, where Respondent has not even asserted that a legitimate use of the disputed domain name can be made, that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: December 30, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy