Energizer Brands, LLC v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2024-4735

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Energizer Brands, LLC v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2024-4735

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Energizer Brands, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by

MarkMonitor, 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 <energizerholdngs.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 November 15, 2024. On November 18, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 November 20, 2024, 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 amended Complaint on November 22, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 November 26, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 16, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 17, 2024.

The Center appointed Kiyoshi Tsuru as the sole panelist in this matter on December 20, 2024. 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 is a United States company, and one of the world’s largest manufacturers of primary
batteries and portable lighting products. The Complainant is globally recognized by its ENERGIZER,
EVEREADY, RAYOVAC and VARTA trademarks. The Complainant operates in more than 40 locations and
distributes its products in more than 140 countries, with more than 5000 employees and 20 brands. The
Complainant is one of the top market share leaders of the battery market and alkaline batteries in the United

States.

The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations including:

Date of

Trademark	Registration No.	Jurisdiction	Registration	Class
Algeria, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Benelux, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Germany, Hungary, Italy,	Class 9, Class
584603	Liechtenstein,	March 16, 1992.	11.
Monaco, North Macedonia, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, and Viet Nam Albania, Algeria, Austria, Benelux, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Germany, page 3
Federation, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, Uzbekiztan, and Viet Nam
Kazakhstan and
ENERGIZER	692243	May 4, 1998.	Class 9
Monaco
ENERGIZER
2028373	United States	January 7, 1997	Class 9

page 4

Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8).

That the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name should be viewed as a
standard registration requirement and, as such, should be disregarded in the finding of a confusing similarity
with the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademarks (and cites WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11). That if the
TLD “.com” is disregarded, the remaining part of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark and is, therefore, highly likely to be mistaken for it.

That the Complainant registered its first ENERGIZER trademark more than 30 years ago and has been
actively using its trademarks since, which has led to the Complainant being clearly recognized as
“ENERGIZER” by the public who has learned to associate the Complainant’s goods and services with the
Complainant’s trademark ENERGIZER.

That the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark, which could mislead Internet users into thinking that the disputed domain name is in some way associated with the Complainant.

That previous UDRP panels have recognized the well-known character of the Complainant’s ENERGIZER
trademark (and cites Eveready Battery Company, Inc. v. Deborah R. Heacock, WIPO Case No. D2013-0463;
Eveready Battery Company, Inc. v. Named Domains, WIPO Case No. D2009-1312; Eveready Battery

Company, Inc. v. Ho Nim, WIPO Case No. D2010-1799).

II. Rights or Legitimate Interests

That the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its ENERGIZER trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademarks.

That the Respondent did not demonstrate the use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona impersonated employees to register the disputed domain name as revealed by the Registrar in this proceeding. That, given this fact, the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to legitimately use the disputed domain name.

fide offering of goods or services. That the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to devise
and execute a fraudulent hiring process by issuing non-existent job offers for work at the Complainant’s
company, impersonating two of the Complainant’s employees in its Human Resources and Talent

That the Respondent has no intention of developing a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the sole purpose of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and disrupting its business, which cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services.

That in addition to using the information of one of the Complainant’s impersonated employees, the
Respondent listed as its address a small village in Italy with a listed population of 10 people and a telephone
number with a United States prefix, strongly suggesting that the contact information was fabricated when
registering the disputed domain name. That this conduct has been weighed by previous UDRP panels when
judging whether a respondent’s use of a domain name constitutes a legitimate fair use (and cites

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3).

That previous UDRP panels have found that the use of a disputed domain name for illegal activity (such as
impersonation and phishing) can never confer rights or legitimate interests to a respondent (and cites
Syngenta Participations AG v. Guillaume Texier, Gobain ltd, WIPO Case No. D2017-1147; Educational
Testing Service v. Ali Mohammed Ahmed, Afakcenter, WIPO Case No. D2017-1600 and
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13).

page 5

That the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s well-known ENERGIZER trademark and the meaningless term “holdngs”, which does not have a particular meaning, but which can be considered as a typo of the word “holdings”, and that such construction may be considered as a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s <energizerholdings.com> domain name, which also matches the business name of the

Complainant’s parent company (Energizer Holdings Inc). That given these facts, it can be considered that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for misleading purposes, and consequently does not have legitimate interests to or rights in the disputed domain name (and cites Philip Morris Brands Sàrl v. Pmi

Int, Philipmorrisinternationals, WIPO Case No. D2018-0105).

III. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

That the fact that the Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a phishing scheme, impersonating two of the Complainant’s employees, shows bad faith in the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.

That it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its products while registering for more than 30 years, which makes it difficult to imagine that the Respondent did not have the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
the disputed domain name, especially given that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name
under the name of one of the Complainant’s impersonated employees. That bad faith can be found when a
respondent “knew or should have known” of a complainant’s trademark, and that previous UDRP panels
have considered that, where the complainant’s trademark is widely known, a respondent cannot credibly
claim to have been unaware of said trademark (and cites WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2). That the

Additionally, the Complainant argues that the registration of the disputed domain name occurred almost 30 years after the registration of the Complainant’s domain name <energizer.com> which corresponds to its official website, and that the earliest ENERGIZER trademark registration predates the registration of the disputed domain name by more than 30 years.

That the additional term “holdngs” is an obvious typo of the term “holdings” used as part of the Complainant’s parent company name (Energizer Holdings Inc). That the Complainant also operates the website to which its domain name <energizerholdings.com> resolves, which indicates that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Additionally, that the incorporation of the term

“holdngs” suggests that the Respondent had the intention of misleading Internet users into thinking that the
disputed domain name is connected to the Complainant.

That bad faith has been found when a domain name is so obviously connected to a trademark that its use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith (and cites Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163 and Sanofi-Aventis v. Nevis Domains LLC, WIPO Case No. D2006-0303).

That the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name is also evident in the Respondent’s use of a privacy shield to prevent the Complainant and the Panel from knowing their identity and eventually avoid being notified of the present UDRP proceedings (and cites WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6).

That paragraph 2 of the Policy sets forth that when someone registers a domain name, they represent or warrant that to their knowledge, the registration of the domain name does not infringe the rights of any third party, meaning that the Respondent had a duty of verifying that the registration of the disputed domain name would not infringe the rights of any third party before registering the disputed domain name (and cites Nike, Inc. v. B.B. de Boer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1397 and Carolina Herrera, Ltd. v. Alberto Rincon Garcia, WIPO Case No. D2002-0806).

page 6

That it is virtually certain that the Respondent deliberately chose the disputed domain name and registered it
in bad faith in order to make a commercial gain and disrupt the Complainant’s legitimate activities. That a
quick search for the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademarks would have revealed to the Respondent the
existence of the Complainant and its trademarks, and that the Respondent’s failure to do so is a contributory
factor of its bad faith (and cites Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, L’Oréal v. 10 Selling, WIPO Case
No. D2008-0226).

That even in the implausible supposition that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant, a simple search via Google or any other search engine using the keywords “energizer” or “energizer holdings” would have demonstrated the Complainant’s existence, activities, history, products, news and locations of official distributors.

That given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation, it is hard to believe that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark when registering the disputed domain name, and that knowledge of such trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name suggests bad faith (and cites

Caixa D’Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona [“La Caixa”] v. Eric Adam, WIPO Case No. D2006-0464).

That there is little to no doubt that the Respondent was aware at all times of the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark and its reputation worldwide. That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark, and that previous UDRP panels have found that a likelihood of confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website (and cites Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Limited, WIPO Case No. D2006-1095).

That given that the disputed domain name resolves to a website with no content, it could be argued that it is v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. K Nandalal, BlueHost, WIPO Case No. D2021-3990, and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3).

currently passively held by the Respondent, and that passive holding does not preclude the finding of bad
faith, and that previous UDRP panels have set forth the following factors to be considered relevant in
applying the passive holding doctrine (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 their identity or use of false contact details
(noted to be in breach of the registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which
the domain name may be put. It should be emphasized that it is not required that all the above-listed factors
be present in order to establish bad faith use of the disputed domain name (and cites Cleveland Browns

That in the present case it cannot be disputed that the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark is widely known and enjoys a reputation and that, given its notoriety, it is difficult to imagine any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.

That it is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the
Complainant from using its ENERGIZER trademark in the disputed domain name, and to prevent the
Complainant from registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes evidence of bad faith (and cites
L’oreal v. Chenxiansheng, WIPO Case No. D2009-0242).

That it is clear that the Respondent is trying to benefit from the fame of the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark, making it seem likely that the Respondent’s primary motive in registering the disputed domain name was to capitalize on, or otherwise take advantage of, the goodwill of the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

page 7

6. Discussion and Findings

Joseph Phelps Vineyards LLC v. NOLDC, Inc., Alternative Identity, Inc., and Kentech, WIPO Case No. D2006-0292, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini, Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0487; see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3).

Given the Respondent’s failure to address the case merits as they relate to the three UDRP elements, the paragraphs 5(f), 14(b), and 15(a) of the Rules (see

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing
(or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison

between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown its rights in respect of its ENERGIZER trademarks for the purposes of the
Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark because it reproduces it entirely (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7), and because the incorporation of the term “holdngs” with the omission of the letter “i” between the letters “d” and “n” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The addition of the gTLD “.com” to the disputed domain name constitutes a technical requirement of the domain name system. Thus, it has no legal significance in assessing identity or confusing similarity in the present case (see CARACOLITO S SAS v. Nelson Brown, OXM.CO, WIPO Case No. D2020-0268; SAP SE v. Mohammed Aziz Sheikh, Sapteq Global Consulting Services, WIPO Case No. D2015-0565; and Bentley Motors Limited v. Domain Admin / Kyle Rocheleau, Privacy Hero Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1919 and WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the 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 to 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 to 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 the Complainant has established a prima facie case
that the Respondent lacks rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent, by
failing to address the Complainant’s contentions, has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing
and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights to or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here evidenced to be phishing and impersonation, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

page 8

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant has ascertained its rights over its ENERGIZER trademark. The Panel agrees with previous panels appointed under the Policy, in that the ENERGIZER trademark is well known. The dates of registration of the Complainant’s trademarks significantly precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent to impersonate the Complainant by sending fraudulent emails offering non-existent job offers. The evidence comprised in the case file indicates that the Respondent has reproduced the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark and used the names of actual employees of the Complainant to forge email communications which look like genuine messages originated from the Complainant.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on and began using said trademark in such a widespread manner as to render it well known.

The Respondent’s bad faith registration is evidenced by the fact that (1) the ENERGIZER trademark is date of registration of the disputed domain name, and (6) the Respondent has provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name, which prevented the courier from delivering the Center’s written communication.
registered in several jurisdictions, including the European Union, where the Respondent is reportedly
located; (2) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the well-known ENERGIZER trademark, as it
incorporates it entirely, nearly identical to the Complainant’s own domain name <energizerholdings.com>,
and also corresponds to the name of the Complainant’s parent company, Energizer Holdings Inc; (3) the
Complainant has provided enough evidence showing the use of the disputed domain name for a phishing
scheme by means of the creation and dispatch of fraudulent emails offering non-existent jobs; (4) the

Complainant has proven that the Respondent has impersonated two employees of the Complainant; (5) the

The use of a domain name for illegal purposes, such as phishing, also constitutes bad faith under the
Policy (see Arla Foods Amba v. Michael Guthrie, M. Guthrie Building Solutions, WIPO Case No.
D2016-2213 and Minerva S.A. v. Whoisguard Protected, Whoisguard, Inc., / GREYHAT SERVICES,
WIPO Case No. D2016-0385). See also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

On the uncontroverted evidence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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

page 9

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 <energizerholdngs.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kiyoshi Tsuru/
Kiyoshi Tsuru
Sole Panelist
Date: January 3, 2025

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.

Hungary, Italy, December 7, Class 9, Class

610623

Kazakhstan,

Liechtenstein,

1993. 11.

Monaco, Morocco, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian

Class 9, Class

000059030 European Union August 6, 1999. 11

The Complainant owns the domain name <energizer.com> which resolves to the Complainant’s main
website. The Complainant’s domain name <energizer.com> was registered on May 11, 1995. The
Complainant also owns the domain names <energizer.net>, <energizer.org>, <energizerbattery.com>,

<energizerholdings.com>, and <energizerholding.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 14, 2024. The disputed domain name currently
does not resolve to an active website. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the
Respondent used the disputed domain name to generate e-mail addresses with the extension
“@energizerholdngs.com”, impersonating the Complainant’s parent company and two of its employees in a

phishing scheme offering non-existent jobs.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends the following:

I. Identical or Confusingly Similar

That the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark in its entirety along with
the meaningless term “holdngs”. That despite the fact that the term “holdngs” does not have a particular
meaning, it is obvious that it is a typo of the generic term “holdings”, omitting the letter “i”. That the term
“holdings” bears relevance to the Complainant’s business activities, given that said term is part of the
Complainant’s parent company’s business name (Energizer Holdings Inc).

That the Complainant’s ENERGIZER trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name and that the addition of the term “holdngs” would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (and cites the WIPO