DECISION

 

Enron Corporation v. PERSIAN SAZEH PERSIAN SAZEH / PERSIAN SAZEH

Claim Number: FA2501002134264

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Enron Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Susan Meyer of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, California, USA. Respondent is PERSIAN SAZEH PERSIAN SAZEH / PERSIAN SAZEH ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enronpower.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne 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, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <enronpower.com> Domain Name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. 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 13, 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@enronpower.com. Also on January 13, 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 Dawn Osborne 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

The Complainant is the owner of the mark ENRON (device mark) registered in the USA since 2021 for clothing.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark fully incorporating it and adding only the generic term 'power' and the gTLD .com.

 

The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name is being passively held.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the mark ENRON (device mark) registered in the USA since 2021 for clothing. It is not connected with the ENRON energy company that no longer exists, but the Complainant has gained some notoriety for purchasing the ENRON trade mark and using it for clothing.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2024 is being passively held.

 

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

The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the distinctive part of the Complainant's ENRON device mark (registered by the Complainant in the USA for clothing since 2021), the generic term 'power' and the gTLD .com.

 

The addition of the generic word 'power' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's BLOOMBERG mark. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant's mark under Policy 4(a)(i)). 

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the distinctive part of the Complainant's ENRON (device) mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The Domain Name is being passively held. Not using a Domain Name for an active web site does not show a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use for the purposes of the Policy. See Wahl Clipper Corporation v. Theresa W Chavez, FA 1973154 (Forum Dec. 14, 2021) ("When Respondent is not using a disputed domain name in connection with an active website, the Panel may find that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. [...]").

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a prior mark with a reputation is commonly held to be bad faith. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000). The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and the Panel is entitled to make adverse inferences if a Respondent does not reply to a Complaint where there seems to be no explanation for the registration of the Domain Name other than it is taking advantage of a prior registered trade mark and is being passively held.

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <enronpower.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: February 5, 2025