Alliant Energy Corporation v. IFEANYICHUKWU .F AJALI
Claim Number: FA2209002012632
Complainant is Alliant Energy Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Thomas L. Holt of Perkins Coie LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is IFEANYICHUKWU .F AJALI ("Respondent"), Gambia
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <allianntenergy.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
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.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 19, 2022; Forum received payment on September 19, 2022.
On September 19, 2022, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <allianntenergy.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 September 21, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 11, 2022 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@allianntenergy.com. Also on September 21, 2022, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 13, 2022, 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 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a public utility holding company that serves approximately 950,000 electric and 410,000 natural gas customers throughout the states of Iowa and Wisconsin. Complainant has used the ALLIANT ENERGY mark in connection with its services for more than 20 years. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for ALLIANT ENERGY in standard character form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <allianntenergy.com> in September 2022. The domain name has been used to impersonate an employee of Complainant in email correspondence sent to a third party vendor, accompanied by a fraudulent purchase order. Complainant states that it has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <allianntenergy.com> is confusingly similar to its ALLIANT ENERGY 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 failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks 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.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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/; 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").
The Panel considers the disputed domain name <allianntenergy.com> to be confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark ALLIANT ENERGY. See Alliant Energy Corp. v. Ifeanyichukwu Ajali, FA 2003013 (Forum Aug. 2, 2022) (finding <allianttenergy.com> confusingly similar to ALLIANT ENERGY); Alliant Energy Corp. v. Sammy Willy / Alliant Energy, FA 1984261 (Forum Mar. 14, 2022) (finding <alliaantenergy.com> confusingly similar to ALLIANT ENERGY).
Respondent's sole apparent use of the disputed domain name has been in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme. Respondent therefore lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Alliant Energy Corp. v. Ifeanyichukwu Ajali, FA 2003013, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Alliant Energy Corp. v. Sammy Willy / Alliant Energy, supra (same).
Respondent registered a domain name corresponding to a typographical variation on Complainant's registered mark, in an instance of typosquatting, and is using it to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See Alliant Energy Corp. v. Ifeanyichukwu Ajali, FA 2003013, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Alliant Energy Corp. v. Sammy Willy / Alliant Energy, supra (same).
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <allianntenergy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: October 13, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page