Constellation Energy Corporation v leblanc mcdonnell

WIPO Case No. D2025-2527

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Constellation Energy Corporation v. leblanc mcdonnell

Case No. D2025-2527

1. The Parties

Complainant is Constellation Energy Corporation, United States of America, (“United States”), represented by Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, United States.

Respondent is leblanc mcdonnell, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <careers-constellationenergy.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2025.
On June 27, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On June 27, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information which differed from the named
Respondent (Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.Org) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 27, 2025, providing the registrant and
contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the

Complaint. Complainant did not submit an amendment to the Complaint at this time.

The Center verified that 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 July 4, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 24, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response.

page 2

Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on July 25, 2025. On July 22, 2025, Complainant sent an email communication to the Center requesting Complaint to be amended adding the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. [1]

The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 30, 2025. 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.

[1]The Panel notes that notwithstanding Complainant’s delay in filing the amendment to the Complaint, Respondent received proper and

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a company based in the United States. For several decades prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant, via its predecessors-in-interest and by assignment, has offered various energy services under the marks CONSTELLATION and CONSTELLATION ENERGY. Complainant is the owner of several registrations for these marks. These include, among others, United States Registration No. 2,161,537 (registered June 2, 1998) for CONSTELLATION ENERGY, and United States Registration No. 4,343,586 (registered May 28, 2013) for CONSTELLATION.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 25, 2025. Although the disputed domain name does not appear to resolve to an active website, Respondent has used it to set up an email address to impersonate Complainant, targeting potential job recruits. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s
trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (iii)
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns rights to the CONSTELLATION and CONSTELLATION ENERGY marks, which Complainant has used for decades in offering various energy services to numerous clients. Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated in full Complainant’s CONSTELLATION and CONSTELLATION ENERGY marks into the disputed domain name, with only the addition of a non- source-identifying hyphen and the term “careers”. Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and rather has registered and is using it in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain name for Respondent’s own commercial gain. In particular, Complainant asserts that Respondent has set up an email address associated with the disputed domain name, which Respondent has used in an attempt to impersonate Complainant, sending phishing emails to potential recruits of Complainant, seeking sensitive personal and financial information.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Complainant has shown rights in respect of trademark or service marks, CONSTELLATION and CONSTELLATION ENERGY, for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Although the addition of other terms (here, a hyphen and the term “careers”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term/s does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s marks for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which

Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating

rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or legitimate interests” in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted.

otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, including phishing activity as
here, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Respondent provided false contact information to the Registrar, with a contact address found to be undeliverable by the package carrier. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for

WIPO Overview 3.0
illegal activity constitutes bad faith. , section 3.4. As noted in Section 4, above, used in a phishing attempt to impersonate Complainant with potential job recruits.

Therefore, the Panel finds sufficient evidence that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph (4)(a)(iii) of the Policy.

page 4

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 <careers-constellationenergy.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Lorelei Ritchie/
Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Date: August 8, 2025

timely notice of the Complaint via the contact information conveyed by Respondent to the Registrar. The Panel further notes that there
is no resulting prejudice to Respondent, since the outcome of this decision would have been the same with or without Respondent’s
contact information. In accordance with paragraph 10(d) of the Rules, the Panel thus accepts Complainant’s amendment adding the
registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar.