Centricabusinessolutions.com

The timeline behind centricabusinessolutions.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Centrica plc, and GB Gas Holdings v. Akom ndr, Akomndr Case No. D2023-2220 1. The Parties The Complainant is Centrica plc, and GB Gas Holdings, United Kingdom, represented by Stobbs IP Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is Akom ndr, Akomndr, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <centricabusinessolutions.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 23, 2023. On May 23, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 24, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 26, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 15, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 23, 2023. The Center appointed William Lobelson as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant Centrica plc, is parent of a number of companies involved in the field of energy services, most of which use as company name CENTRICA or CENTRICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, and in particular its subsidiary GB Gas Holdings Ltd, owner of several trademark registrations for CENTRICA and CENTRICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS: - United States Registration CENTRICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS of November 12, 2019, No. 5905663 in classes 7, 9, 11, 35, 42 - United Kingdom Registration CENTRICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS of December 29, 2017, No. 00003247552 in classes 7, 9, 11, 35, 42 - WIPO ([AU, EU, IL, JP, MX, US] Registration CENTRICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS of October 26, 2018, No. 1403305 in classes 7, 9, 11, 35, 42 - United States Registration CENTRICA of April 15, 2003, No. 2706111 in classes 4, 9, 11, 37, 39, 40, 42 - European Union Registration CENTRICA of December 19, 2000, No. 000469684 in classes 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 31, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42 - United Kingdom Registration CENTRICA of February 14, 1997, No.00002107461 in classes 1, 39, 40 22. The Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <centricabusinesssolutions.com>, registered in 2022. The disputed domain name is <centricabusinessolutions.com>, registered on February 10, 2023. It resolves to an inactive webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its earlier trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Notwithstanding the default of the Respondent, it remains incumbent on the Complainant to make out its case in all respects under the Rules set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. Namely, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (paragraph 4(a)(i)); page 3 (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(a)(ii)); and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii)). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for CENTRICA and CENTRICA BUSINESS SOLUTION, registered and used in relation with energy services. The disputed domain name <centricabusinessolutions.com> reproduces the Complainant’s trademarks, simply omitting a letter “s” between the two elements “business” and “solutions”. The relevant trademarks are recognizable within the disputed domain name, notwithstanding the addition and typosquatting of the element “businessolutions”. That does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element; see section 1.10 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”): “A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name.” Furthermore, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is a standard registration requirement and as such does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, non-exclusive respondent defences under UDRP paragraph 4(c) include the following: (i) before any notice 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 and services; (ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent 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 misleading divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not filed a response and thus did not deny the Complainant’s assertions, nor brought any information or evidence for demonstrating any rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, including by asserting that the Respondent is not affiliated with it in any way and that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain page 4 name, does not own any proprietary rights in the name “centricabusinessolutions”, and does not make any bona fide use – neither commercial nor noncommercial, of the same. The Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has substantiated the fact that its trademarks CENTRICA and CENTRICA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, which have been registered and used for years, now benefit from a high level of public awareness, including in the United States. Due to the longstanding use of the Complainant’s mark worldwide and in the United States, where the Respondent appears to be located, the Respondent could not reasonably be unaware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel infers from the above that the Respondent acted in bad faith when it registered the disputed domain name. It is further noted by the Panel that the disputed domain name is not being actively used by the Respondent, and does not resolve to any active web page with substantive content. It is a consensus view among UDRP panels that, with comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, the apparent lack of so- called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name, does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the Complainant having a well-known trademark and no response to the Complaint having been filed. UDRP panels may draw inferences about whether a domain name is used in bad faith, given the circumstances surrounding registration. As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.3, there is a consensus view about “passive holding”: “From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or ‘coming soon’ page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (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 its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.” Such passive holding is to be regarded as use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574 ; Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131; Westdev Limited v. Private Data, WIPO Case No. D2007-1903; Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393; Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273). The Panel finds, therefore, that the passive holding of the disputed domain name in this case does not prevent a finding of bad faith. page 5 In addition to the above, the Complainant has filed evidence of phishing as well as a scam assessment for the disputed domain name, carried out by a professional threat profiling software, thus inducing a likelihood that the Respondent might have contemplated to use the disputed domain name for potential fraudulent use of an email address incorporating the Complainant’s trademark and/or phishing purposes (Statoil ASA v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protection Service Inc D/B/A PrivacyProtect.org / Nicolas Kerry, WIPO Case No. D2017-0046 ). Consequently, in view of all the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are satisfied. 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 <centricabusinessolutions.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /William Lobelson/ William Lobelson Sole Panelist Date: June 30, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.