CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2023-1278

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2023-1278

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CenterPoint Energy, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Fibbe Lightner, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Name Redacted.[1]

[1] The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <centerpointsenergyinc.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2023. connection with the disputed domain name. On March 24, 2023, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 29, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 3 2023.

The Center verified that the 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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 12, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 3, 2023.

The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on May 16, 2023. 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

The Complainant operates in the field of energy delivery, including electric transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution and energy services operations. It owns the trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY which it has registered in multiple forms for various goods and services (e.g., United States Reg. No. 2863036, registered on July 13, 2004). According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on January 25, 2023. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to set up a website featuring pay-per-click (“PPC”) links of the sort that, according to the Complainant, consumers might seek to compare energy providers or to get credit and rewards for energy purchases.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the 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 the Complainant has rights, (ii) the 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 Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This first element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark
certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde
Nast S.A. v. Voguechen, WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the
CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations.

page 3

The test under this element typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. In some cases, such assessment may also entail a more holistic aural or phonetic comparison of the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name to ascertain confusing similarity. Id.

Guided by these principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark. The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant's mark only inasmuch as it contains an “s” following the word “centerpoint”, and the addition of the letters “inc” at the end of the second level of the disputed domain name. The Complainant's mark remains sufficiently recognizable for a showing of confusing similarity under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent (with the burden of proof always remaining with the Complainant). See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1; AXA SA v. Huade Wang, WIPO Case No. D2022-1289.

On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) it has not authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark in the disputed domain name, (2) the Complainant is not in any way or manner associated with or related to the Respondent, (3) the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain name, and (4) the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to establish a website that provides PPC links to other websites, including websites relevant to the Complainant’s industry.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, and has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. Nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent's favor. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith registration and use. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”.

Given the distinctive nature of the Complainant’s mark, as well as the close similarity between said mark and the disputed domain name, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when it registered the disputed domain name. This sort of targeting shows bad faith registration.

The Panel credits the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent’s intention from the outset appears to have been to use the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website on the back of the Complainant’s name recognition and with an intention for commercial gain. This is a strong

indicator of bad faith use.

page 4

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under the Policy.

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 <centerpointsenergyinc.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Evan D. Brown/
Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: June 2, 2023

identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this
decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent.
The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated
Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v.
FAST‑12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.