Fundacion Comercio Electronico

WIPO Case No. D2024-3298

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues,

Fundacion Comercio Electronico

Case No. D2024-3298

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 Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <centerponntenergy.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 12, 2024.

On August 13, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On August 13, 2024, 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 (Registration Private; Registry Domain ID:

2887983423_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email

communication to the Complainant on August 16, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 20, 2024.

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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 23, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 12, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 13, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Marie-Emmanuelle Haas as the sole panelist in this matter on September 27, 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

Complainant, CenterPoint Energy, Inc., is a well-known company in the United States, with over a billion

dollars in net income, operating in the field of energy delivery, including electric transmission and distribution,

natural gas distribution and energy services operations.

It delivers energy to approximately 4 million homes and businesses in six American sates.

It first adopted the name “CenterPoint Energy” on February 2, 2001, more than 20 years ago.

The Complainant operates a website connected to its domain name <centerpointenergy.com> which it

registered on December 12, 2000. Through its website, Complainant’s customers may review their bills and

make payments, monitor their electricity and gas usage, and request a service call, among other things.

Complainant is the registered owner of the following CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademarks:

- United States trademark No. 2863036 filed on May 23, 2001, registered on July 13, 2004

- United States trademark No. 2863037 filed on May 23, 2001, registered on July 13, 2004

- United States trademark No. 2823759 filed on May 23, 2001, registered on March 16, 2004

The disputed domain name <centerponntenergy.com> was registered on June 5, 2024, by

Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, domiciled in Panama.

The Registrant was a respondent in hundreds of prior UDRP procedures.

The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage providing “related searches”, specifically pay-per-click

(PPC) links in the field of energy, to compare electricity rates or prices.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Notably, the Complainant contends the following on each of the three elements.

On confusing similarity

The disputed domain name is comprised solely of a typographical misspelling of the Complainant’s well-

known CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademark and is confusingly similar with and virtually identical to the

Complainant’s CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark.

Indeed, the disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark in its entirety,

with the “i” replaced with the letter “n”.

It is well-settled that the addition of a single letter does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name so as to

preclude confusing similarity. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third

page 3

Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) Section 1.9. Domain names that constitute typosquatting, as the disputed

domain name does, are deemed confusingly similar to the mark they intentionally modify.

Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CENTERPOINT ENDERGY trademark.

On the absence of rights or legitimate interests

Respondent is a typosquatter and has registered Complainant’s trademark with a minor typographical error.

Respondent is not and never has been known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized,

licensed, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademark, nor is

Complainant in any way or manner associated with or related to Respondent.

Based on the searches Complainant has undertaken, no other person or legal entity owns registered

trademark rights corresponding to CENTERPOINT ENERGY anywhere in the world, nor has anyone applied

for such a registration.

It is added that CENTERPOINT ENERGY has no common meaning in the English language.

Respondent offers no goods or services through the disputed domain name and operates no bona fide

business.

Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website page containing PPC links to other

websites, what cannot be identified as a bona fide use.

Given the extensive use of the Complainant’s trademarks and the fact that it is uniquely linked to the

Complainant, the Respondent must have been aware of this when it registered the disputed domain name.

On bad faith registration and use

Complainant relies on the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CENTERPOINT

ENERGY trademark is a presumption of bad faith.

Registering the disputed domain name 20 years after the CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademark was

registered and started to be extensively used and using it to resolve to a website offering to compare

electricity prices underscores the Respondent’s bad faith.

The Respondent is a “serial” cybersquatter, as proved by the 400 prior UDRP decisions in which it was

decided against her.

This is a classic cybersquatting case that the UDRP is meant to proscribe.

B. Respondent

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

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 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.

page 4

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The disputed domain name is composed of a misspelling of the Complainant’s CENTERPOINT ENERGY

trademark.

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed

domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 1.9.

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

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the

disputed domain name by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the

disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide

offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if it has acquired no

trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without

intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers, or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at

issue.

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.

The Complainant proves that the disputed domain name was used without any authorization to misleadingly

divert Internet users, using the reputation of the CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademark.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case

that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has

not rebutted the 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 otherwise.

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

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by a Panel to be

evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

page 5

It provides that:

For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if

found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad

faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered, or the respondent has acquired the domain

name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to

the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for

valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the

domain name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or

service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has

engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,

Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or

location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.

In the present case, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent could not ignore the Complainant’s

rights on the CENTERPOINT ENERGY trademark when it decided to register the disputed domain name,

which amounts to registration in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2.

The Panel is of the opinion that Complainant has established a pattern of bad faith conduct, consisting of

hundreds of UDRP cases decided against the Respondent in the last years. WIPO Overview 3.0,

section 3.1.2.

The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website offering to compare electricity prices

constitutes bad faith use within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of 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 <centerponntenergy.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Marie-Emmanuelle Haas/

Marie-Emmanuelle Haas

Sole Panelist

Date: October 11, 2024