Constelationenergy.com

The timeline behind constelationenergy.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 Constellation Energy Corporation v. monica galloway Case No. D2026-1003 1. The Parties Complainant is Constellation Energy Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. Respondent is monica galloway, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The Disputed Domain Name <constelationenergy.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 9, 2026. On March 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 11, 2026, 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, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 12, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 16, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2026. 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 was founded in 1999 and is one of the largest producers of reliable, clean, carbon-free energy in the United States and leading suppliers of energy products and services, including sustainable energy solutions for millions of homes, institutional customers, the public sector, community aggregations and businesses, including three fourths of The Fortune 100 companies. Complainant currently operates in 48 states of the United States, the District of Columbia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Complainant offers goods and services in three main segments: Merchant Energy, Regulated Electric, and Regulated Gas with an approximatel y 14,000-person workforce. Complainant’s total revenues in 2024 were recorded as USD 23.568 million and in 2025 it was rated 186 in The Fortune 500 and 311 in The Forbes list for Global 2000. Complainant maintains a strong online presence with its official domain name <constellation.com>, plus an additional website <constellationenergy.com> registered in 1996 and 1999, respectively. Similarweb.com ranks Complainant’s official website as 90,179 th globally, 241 st in its industry with 464,142 total visits in December 2025. Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations of the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark across various jur isdictions, including the Unted States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIOP). The relevant trademark registrations include, without limitation, the following: United States Registration No. 2161537 for CONSTELLATION ENERGY registered on June 2, 1998, in international class 40; Canadian Registration No. TMA677548 for CONSTELLATION ENERGY registered on November 24, 2006, in international class 35; and European Union Registration No. 004595252 for CONSTELLATION ENGERY registered on September 28, 2006, in international classes 4, 9,11, etc. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 6, 2025, resolves to an inactive website, and is enrolled in a mail exchange (MX) allowing for the sending and receiving of email. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is an intentional misspelling of the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark by the removal of one of the letters “L”. Complainant further contends that this is a prototypical example of typosquatting. Complainant further contends that Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant never given Respondent permission to use the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark in any manner, including in a domain name. page 3 Complainant submits that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to send fraudulent emails which have the appearance of coming from purported employees of Complainant, with fictitious positions as Project Manager or Procurement Manager, to Complainant’s vendors with the intent of re-routing vendors’ supplies to an address that is not affiliated with the Complainant. Complainant further submits that in furtherance of this fraud, Respondent’s emails also included Complainant’s entity name, logo, and location of its office in Baltimore, Maryland. Complainant further submits that Respondent’s fraudulent scheme includes fake purchase orders and allows Respondent to gather the vendors’ confidential information. Complainant further submits that Respondent’s actions constitute phishing. Complainant further submits that Respondent’s actions cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can these actions be a legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further submits that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that it has sold its goods and services since 1999 using the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark. Complainant further alleges that, when Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2025, it had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark and acted in bad faith. Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Even though Respondent has failed to file a Response or to contest Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will review the evidence proffered by Complainant to verify that the three essential elements of the claims are met. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.3. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: i) that the Disputed Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark in which Complainant has rights; and ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and iii) that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1 states that registration of the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of Complainant having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. Complainant has shown rights in respect of the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. page 4 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 CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the deletion of letters, here the deletion of one letter “L” in the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the deletion of such letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.9. 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 three nonexclusive circumstances in which Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a Disputed Domain Name. (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your 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) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on Complainant, panels have recognized that proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of Respondent. As such, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (although the burden of proof always remains on Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 otherwise. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here impersonation, phishing and a fraudulent scheme, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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. (i) circumstances indicating that you [Respondent] have registered or you have acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the CONSETLLATION ENERGY Mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain Name; or (ii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names in order to prevent Complainant as the owner of the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark from reflecting the CONSTELLATION ENERGY Mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you [Respondent] have registered the Disputed Domain Names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the Disputed Domain Names, you [Respondent] have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CONSTELLATION ENGERY Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product on your website or location. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such active (“behind the scenes”) uses are considered distinct from the passive holding doctrine discussed above, and can include a range of bad faith activity or scams such as sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution. (In some such cases, the respondent may even host a copycat version of the complainant’s website.) Many such cases involve the respondent’s use of the domain name to send deceptive emails, e.g., to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information from prospective job applicants, or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the complainant’s actual or prospective customers. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Panels have held that the use of the Disputed Domain Name for illegitimate activity, here claimed as impersonation, phishing, and a fraudulent scheme constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that 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 <constelationenergy.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Richard W. Page/ Richard W. Page Sole Panelist Date: April 24, 2026

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