DECISION

 

Enron Corporation v. Emir Nabavi

Claim Number: FA2501002134263

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Enron Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Susan Meyer of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Emir Nabavi ("Respondent"), Turkey.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enronenergy.com>, registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 8, 2025; Forum received payment on January 8, 2025.

 

On January 9, 2025, Squarespace Domains II LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <enronenergy.com> domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains II LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains II LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains II 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 January 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 3, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@enronenergy.com. Also on January 14, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 February 4, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a company dedicated to solving the global energy crisis with innovation, adaptability, and a commitment to a brighter future. The ENRON mark is currently used by Complainant for a variety of goods and services, including energy industry-related clothing items. It does this through, inter alia, its website <www.enron.com>. Complainant asserts rights in the mark ENRON through its registration in the United States on June 1, 2021, application date May 13, 2020.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ENRON mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive term "energy" together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is not being used.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is not being used.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that its mark is well known.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on April 14, 2021.

 

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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant presents a registration certificate for a design mark including the word "ENRON".

 

In the registration certificate, the mark is described as an "E" in red, green, and blue, with the word "ENRON" in blue making up the left portion of the "E."

 

According to the certificate, the owner of the mark is "The College Company LLC (ARKANSAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY), DBA Pre-Internet 1671 S Colonnade Dr Apt 301, Fayetteville, ARKANSAS 72701."

 

The Panel notes that, according to the certificate attached to the Complaint, Complainant is not the owner of the mark in question. Complainant does not provide evidence to show that it has rights in the mark.

 

According to paragraph 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the UDRP Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision.

 

This may include visiting the website linked to the disputed domain name in order to obtain more information about the respondent or its use of the domain name, consulting historical resources such as the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) in order to obtain an indication of how a domain name may have been used in the relevant past, reviewing dictionaries or encyclopedias (e.g., Wikipedia), or accessing trademark registration databases.

 

From publicly available databases, the Panel has determined that the trademark in question has indeed been assigned to Complainant. So Complainant does have rights in the mark in question.

 

However, the Complaint will be dismissed pursuant to the third element of the Policy, see below.

 

Since Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving all three elements of the Policy, the Panel need not analyze the first two elements, see Damijan Tuscana/Medellin Living, LLC v. Brad Hinkelman, FA 1984731 (Forum Mar. 24, 2022) ("In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must prove all three elements under the Policy.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons given above, the Panel need not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The disputed domain name is not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put."

 

Complainant does not allege – much less present evidence to show – that its trademark is well known.

 

As noted above, a Panel may conduct limited factual research regarding disputed domain names:

 

From an Internet search, the Panel has found a Wikipedia article, according to which on December 2, 2024, the Enron web site relaunched as satire, with Connor Gaydos as CEO, cofounder of Birds Aren't Real (apparently a satirical conspiracy theory which posits that birds are actually drones operated by the United States government to spy on American citizens), see <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron> and <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_Aren%27t_Real>. The website <enron.com> does indeed show Connor Gaydos as CEO.

 

Complainant did not provide the above information, nor did it explain why its satirical use of the name of the former Enron company would be well known, in particular to a registrant in Turkey. The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that its mark (as opposed to the name of the former Enron company) is well known.

 

As noted above, a key element required to establish bad faith registration and use for an unused website is that the mark be well known, see Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Patrick Shanahan, FA 1889813 (Forum May 7, 2020) ("Bad faith can be found when a disputed domain name that infringes on a famous mark and is then left inactive under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also Bridgewater Associates, LP v. hamza hamed, FA 1894223 (Forum June 9, 2020) ("The fame of Complainant's mark and the lack of evidence of legitimate use and bona fide offering of goods and services by Respondent are the factors that, inter alia, support finding of passive holding as constituting bad faith registration and use.").

 

Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use cannot be inferred from the failure actively to use the disputed domain name. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enronenergy.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: February 5, 2025