Complainant is CenterPoint Energy, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fibbe Lightner, LLP, United States.
Respondent is Whois Agent (757295973), Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., United States / Brad Mills, 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 June 4, 2020. On June 5, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 2020, 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 June 12, 2020, 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 June 17, 2020. The Center verified that 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 June 22, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 12, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 14, 2020. The Center appointed Scott R. Austin as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 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 states in its Complaint and provides evidence in the respective Annexes sufficient to support that Complainant is a well-known provider of electric transmission and natural gas distribution services to millions of homes, factories, and businesses in the United States. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for CENTERPOINT ENERGY effective in the United States, including United States Trademark Registration No. 2823759, registered on March 16, 2004. The disputed domain was registered name on March 24, 2020, and resolves to a corresponding website pretending to be a company affiliated with Complainant used to obtain credit and financing. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The standard of proof under the Policy is often expressed as the “balance of the probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence” standard. Under this standard, an asserting party needs to establish that it is more likely than not that the claimed fact is true. See, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, section 4.2 (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the owner identified on certificates for multiple valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the mark CENTERPOINT ENERGY. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen,WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. Prior UDRP panels have held “the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks”. Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The Panel finds here that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s registered CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark. Furthermore, the addition of the dictionary term “solutions” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the second element of the Policy, a complainant is first required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the complainant makes that showing, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence of such rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. See also, Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International,WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Complainant has established, prima facie, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, Complainant asserts that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark in any manner, nor is Complainant in any way or manner associated with or related to Respondent. Complainant has also claimed with persuasive evidence submitted that Respondent is not commonly known by the name “Centerpoint Energy”. It is generally regarded as prima facie evidence of no rights or legitimate interests if a complainant shows that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark, that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and that the complainant has not authorized the respondent to use its mark (or an expression which is confusingly similar to its mark), whether in the disputed domain name or otherwise. See, Roust Trading Limited v. AMG LLC,WIPO Case No. D2007-1857. Most importantly, Complainant’s evidence shows the disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s counterfeit website featuring the CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark above a gallery of portraits of fictional executives Respondent created by copying and renaming portraits of true executives from the website content of one of Complainant’s subsidiaries. Complainant further shows that Respondent has used the fake site along with forged financial and tax identification data in a scheme to fraudulently apply for credit and financing in the name of Complainant. Complainant’s evidence shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud through pretending an affiliation with Complainant. The Panel finds Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See, Valero Energy Corporation and Valero Marketing and Supply Company v. Valero Energy,WIPO Case No. D2017-0075. These facts establish Complainant’s prima facie showing. Respondent has not provided any basis on which that showing may be overcome. Complainant has successfully met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Because Complainant’s mark CENTERPOINT ENERGY is well known, having been used to identify services provided to millions of consumers for almost 18 years, it is implausible to believe that Respondent was not aware of that mark when it registered its confusingly similar disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, where Respondent registered the disputed domain name to engage in per se illegitimate activity, such a showing is sufficient to establish bad faith registration. See, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Bad faith use is clear from Respondent’s website accessed through the disputed domain name, created for the purposes of perpetrating financial fraud to obtain credit by suggesting an affiliation with Complainant as discussed in detail in 6.B. above. Given the substantial evidence on file that shows use of the disputed domain name to commit fraud against Complainant, the Panel finds bad faith use. See, Valero Energy, supra; Graybar Services Inc. v. Graybar Elec, Grayberinc Lawrenge,WIPO Case No. D2009-1017. 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 Scott R. Austin
For these reasons, the Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy