Complainant is Sunnova Energy Corporation, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by Robinson Law Office, PLLC, United States.
Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 21, 2020. On January 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 22, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 January 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 12, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 13, 2020. The Center appointed Colin T. O’Brien as the sole panelist in this matter on February 17, 2020. 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 U.S. company providing energy solutions. Complainant is the owner of U.S. trademark registration number 5038779, registered September 13, 2016, for SUNNOVA in connection with retail electricity provider services, namely, providing a service that allows customers to purchase energy, namely, electricity; financing services; maintenance and repair of renewable energy generation equipment; electricity distribution services; leasing of renewable energy generation equipment; monitoring of solar panels and other equipment for use in converting solar energy into electricity; monitoring of efficiency, production levels and other performance data of solar panels and other equipment for use in converting solar energy into electricity in Classes 35, 37, 39, 40, and 42. Complainant is also the owner of U.S. trademark registration number 5038778, registered September 13, 2016, for SUNNOVA (and Design), in connection with retail electricity provider services, namely, providing a service that allows customers to purchase energy, namely, electricity; financing services; maintenance and repair of renewable energy generation equipment; electricity distribution services; leasing of renewable energy generation equipment; monitoring of solar panels and other equipment for use in converting solar energy into electricity; monitoring of efficiency, production levels and other performance data of solar panels and other equipment for use in converting solar energy into electricity in Classes 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on August 30, 2019, and has been offered for sale on third party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SUNNOVA trademark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no web site associated with the disputed domain name. There no evidence to suggest Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence Respondent is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain misleadingly to divert consumers or to tarnish the service mark at issue. The disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. On January 16, 2020, a third party, acting on behalf of Respondent, emailed Complainant’s chief executive officer, and alerted him to the availability for purchase of the disputed domain name on Afternic, where it is for sale for USD 17,995, as follows: “Hi […], Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. However, on February 17, 2020, the third party wrote to Dynadot stating: Complainant has demonstrated it owns registered trademark rights in the SUNNOVA mark. The addition of “.org” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has presented a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; has not at any time been commonly known by the disputed domain name; has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name and is not making a legitimate noncommercial of fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has also presented prima facie evidence that Respondent obtained the disputed domain name in August 2019 and then attempted to sell the disputed domain name to Complaint five months later for over USD 17,000. This indicates Respondent sought to obtain a windfall based on the sale of After a complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Here, Respondent has provided no evidence of any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In the absence of any evidence indicating a legitimate reason for registering the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered years after Complainant first registered its SUNNOVA trademark. The evidence on the record provided by Complainant with respect to the extent of use of its SUNNOVA trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time the disputed domain name was registered, Respondent most likely knew of Complainant’s SUNNOVA mark, and knew that it had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name was offered for sale for over USD 17,000 and that the disputed domain name only had one legitimate buyer – namely Complainant. This establishes Respondent acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant for a sum significantly in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name – which, according to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 Colin T. O’Brien
Your domain is just like our Sunnova.org domain.
Since we are done using it, we listed it at Afternic (owned by GoDaddy) for anyone to purchase at any time.
Go see @ Sunnova.org” B. Respondent
“Please delete this domain name or transfer it out of my account. I do NOT want this domain name. Please remove it.” 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: February 26, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy