Everwatt.com

The timeline behind everwatt.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 EverWatt Lights, LLC v. SHANLIN ZHAO Case No. D2026-3922 1. The Parties Complainant is EverWatt Lights, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States. Respondent is SHANLIN ZHAO, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <everwatt.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 2, 2026. On September 2, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown / Redacted for Privacy, NameBrightPrivacy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email to Complainant on September 4, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on September 5, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 29, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on October 2, 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 According to the Complaint: “Complainant is a U.S. Department of Energy-qualified Energy Service Company (ESCO) headquartered in Hayward, California (USA), serving commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal facilities. Complainant designs, manufactures, finances, installs and maintains LED lighting and building-energy systems, and is best known for a lighting-as-a-service subscription model under which Complainant carries the capital cost of a retrofit on its own balance sheet and the customer pays a monthly fee guaranteed to be below its existing lighting cost.” “Complainant was founded in 2015; employs 26 people; operates in five offices, warehouses and other locations; and has annual revenue greater than [USD] 10 million.” “Complainant serves customers across 19 published industry verticals, including: amusement parks, assisted living, automotive, car dealerships, churches, city and county government, clinics, construction and contractors, family services and youth centers, food banks, golf courses and country clubs, gyms and fitness, hospitals, manufacturing, property management, retail, K–12 schools, transportation and logistics, and warehouses – plus hotels and resorts, high-tech, labor unions, universities and colleges, and packaging and distribution.” “Complainant is one of only 91 companies included on a qualified list (#29) of energy service companies published by the U.S. Department of Energy.” Complainant has owned the domain name <everwattlights.com> since June 2, 2016, and uses that domain name to host its commercial website. According to Complainant’s website, its customers include major companies such as Walgreens, Ford, Hyundai, Colliers International, and Best Western. Complainant’s app is available at the Google Play Store and the Apple App Store. Complainant holds a trademark registration for the word mark EVERWATT, United States Reg. No. 5,436,882, registered on April 3, 2018 in connection with “LED light bulbs; Lighting fixtures”, with a July 4, 2015, date of first use in commerce. The Domain Name was registered by Respondent on June 19, 2026. According to Complainant, the Domain Name is redirected to a website at “www.atom.com/name/EverWatt”, which site advertises the Domain Name for sale for USD 56,000 and describes it as a “brandable name” that “evokes images of everlasting energy, innovation, and sustainability” and is “perfect for” companies “in the renewable energy sector”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. page 3 B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes, on this undisputed record, the Complainant has rights in the trademark EVERWATT through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is identical to that mark. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the 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 Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward to dispute any of the allegations or evidence advanced by Complainant. Given that Complainant held a registered trademark identical to the Domain Name for approximately eight years prior to Respondent’s acquisition of the Domain Name, and given the content at the website to which the Domain Name is redirected (advertising the Domain Name as an excellent fit within the energy sector), the Panel concludes that it is more likely than not that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s mark at the time the Domain Name was registered. Absent any other explanation or evidence beyond the foregoing website content, the Panel finds it more likely than not that the Domain Name was registered in order to sell it for a sizable profit due to its likely association among consumers with Complainant’s registered trademark. Such trading on the renown of another’s trademark does not invest Respondent with a legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name. page 4 The Panel concludes that Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes, on the record presented here, that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. The Panel incorporates its discussion above in the “Rights or Legitimate Interests” section. In sum, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent registered the Domain Name with knowledge of the EVERWATT mark and did so in order to capitalize on the renown of that mark for commercial gain by selling it at a profit. As such, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name <everwatt.com> be transferred to Complainant. /Robert A. Badgley/ Robert A. Badgley Sole Panelist Date: October 12, 2026

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