Westmore · UDRP DecisionCeenterpointenergy.com + 13 more domains
The Panel ordered the transfer of 14 domain names that each represented a one-character misspelling of the Complainant’s CENTERPOINT ENERGY mark. It found confusing similarity, no rights or legitimate interests, and bad-faith registration and use based on intentional typosquatting, the reputation of the mark, use of the domains for advertising and presumed pay-per-click links, and evidence of the Respondent’s involvement in prior typosquatting matters.
The timeline behind ceenterpointenergy.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind ceenterpointenergy.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates a concentrated typosquatting pattern in which numerous one-character variants of a single, widely known mark were registered together and monetized through advertising and presumed pay-per-click links. The number and uniformity of the variants materially reinforced the Panel’s findings of deliberate targeting and bad faith.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION CenterPoint Energy, Inc. v. yinsi baohu yi kai qi (Hidden by Whois Privacy Protection Service) / Li Jin Liang Case No. D2018-2342 1. The Parties The Complainant is CenterPoint Energy, Inc. of Houston, Texas, United States of America (“United States” or “USA”), represented by Fibbe Lightner, LLP, United States. The Respondent is yinsi baohu yi kai qi (Hidden by Whois Privacy Protection Service) of Chengdu, Sichuan, China / Li Jin Liang of Jinan, Shandong, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <ceenterpointenergy.com>, <cennterpointenergy.com>, <centeerpointenergy.com>, <centeroointenergy.com>, <centerpoinntenergy.com>, <centerpointenerggy.com>, <centerpointennergy.com>, <centerpointenwrgy.com>, <centerpoontenergy.com>, <centerppintenergy.com>, <centrrpointenergy.com>, <centterpointenergy.com>, <centwrpointenergy.com> and <xenterpointenergy.com> are registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2018. On October 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 16, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 16, 2018 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 October 21, 2018. On October 16, 2018, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On October 19, 2018, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent, in English and Chinese, of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 19, 2018. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on November 23, 2018. 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 large and well-known publicly traded company, headquartered in the United States, with a net income of USD 1.8 billion and nearly 8,000 employees. The Complainant mainly provides energy delivery services to both businesses and consumers, including electric transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution and energy services. The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations for CENTERPOINT ENERGY (word and device marks) in several jurisdictions, including in the USA, Canada and the European Union, e.g. , USA registration number 2863036, registered on July 13, 2004, and European Union registration number 002869584, registered on November 3, 2004. The Complainant also owns the domain name <centerpointenergy.com> which it registered on December 12, 2000 and through which the Complainant’s customers may review their bills, make payments and monitor their electricity and gas usage. Incidentally, the relevant registered trademarks and domain names adduced by the Complainant were successfully registered prior to the registration date of the disputed domain names, which were all registered in August, 2018. The disputed domain names direct to active websites, which provide links to providers of online financial and software services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its prior trademarks for CENTERPOINT ENERGY, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names were registered, and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that its trademarks are famous and well regarded in the energy industry, and provides evidence of its marketing materials and company information materials. The Complainant also provides prior instances of typosquatting by the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain names are linked to active websites, advertising online financial services and further links to providers of such services, using the Complainant’s trademarks, without any reference to a license, distribution agreement or other permission from the Complainant. The Complainant essentially contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and constitutes use in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of proceedings Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The Complainant states that the language of the Registration Agreement is unknown. It presumes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, given that the Registrar is based in China. The Registrar has in fact confirmed that the Registration Agreement is in Chinese. Nevertheless, the Complainant has filed the Complaint in English and requests that the language of proceedings be English. The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of proceedings be English; the lack of comment on the language of the proceeding and the lack of response of the Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent had the opportunity to put forward arguments in either English or Chinese); the fact that all disputed domain names resolve to active webpages that are partially in English, so that the Panel concludes that the Respondent is able to understand and communicate in English; the fact that IP-based geo-location mapping data submitted by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent is located in the USA, where English is the official language; and the fact that Chinese as the language of proceedings could lead to unwarranted delay and costs for the Complainant. In view of all these elements, the Panel rules that the language of proceedings shall be English. 6.2. Discussion and Findings on the merits The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it has valid rights in the sign CENTERPOINT ENERGY based on its use and registration of the same as a trademark, incidentally commencing several years prior to the registration of the disputed domain names. Moreover, as to confusing similarity, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9 , states: “A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element”. In this case, the Panel considers that the disputed domain names are clearly selected by intentionally misspelling the Complainant’s trademark CENTERPOINT ENERGY, each time incorporating such trademark in its entirety, except that for each disputed domain name a character of such trademark is added, omitted or misspelled. The disputed domain names retain clearly recognizable elements of the Complainant’s trademark, which remains the dominant element in each of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel rules that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and the first element required by the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel notes that the Respondent is not an authorized reseller, service provider or distributor, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel therefore considers that none of the circumstances of legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies. The Panel also notes that no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second requirement under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the reputation and fame of the Complainant’s trademark, the registration of the disputed domain names, which incorporate such trademark in its entirety, except for the intentional misspelling of one character in each disputed domain name, is clearly intended to mislead and divert consumers to the disputed domain names. Even a cursory Internet search at the time of registration of the disputed domain names would have made it clear to the Respondent that the Complainant owns trademarks in CENTERPOINT ENERGY and uses this sign extensively. In the Panel’s view, this clearly indicates the bad faith of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. As to use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the websites linked to the disputed domain names are currently used as platforms which advertise payment services, and also contain what is presumed to be pay-per-click hyperlinks to payment service and software solution providers. Such use of the disputed domain names is clearly intended to divert consumers to the disputed domain names, where unauthorized services are advertised using the Complainant’s trademarks and where consumers are diverted to unrelated websites. Moreover, the disputed domain names contain typos and are confusingly similar to a widely-known mark, which by itself creates a presumption of bad faith, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4 : “Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.” Finally, the Complainant also provided evidence that the Respondent has been involved in several prior typosquatting cases. Both these results, and the facts of this case (14 domain name registrations exclusively consisting of the Complainant’s intentionally misspelled trademark) lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent is an opportunistic domain name squatter, using the disputed domain names in bad faith to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel therefore rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Finally, the Respondent has failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third requirement 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 names <ceenterpointenergy.com>, <cennterpointenergy.com>, <centeerpointenergy.com>, <centeroointenergy.com>, <centerpoinntenergy.com>, <centerpointenerggy.com>, <centerpointennergy.com>, <centerpointenwrgy.com>, <centerpoontenergy.com>, <centerppintenergy.com>, <centrrpointenergy.com>, <centterpointenergy.com>, <centwrpointenergy.com> and <xenterpointenergy.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Deanna Wong Wai Man Sole Panelist Date: December 5, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around ceenterpointenergy.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.