Tacenergys.com, Thearn0ldcos.com

The timeline behind tacenergys.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION TACenergy, LLC v. wsncmmw / mwsncm Claim Number: FA2502002140288 PARTIES Complainant is TACenergy, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Stephanie A. Schmidt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is wsncmmw / mwsncm ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <tacenergys.com> and <thearn0ldcos.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 14, 2025; Forum received payment on February 14, 2025. On February 17, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tacenergys.com> and <thearn0ldcos.com> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On February 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@tacenergys.com, postmaster@thearn0ldcos.com. Also on February 18, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it was formerly an operating division of Truman Arnold Companies—a Texarkana, Texas-based Conoco distributor founded in 1964. Complainant commenced use of the TACENERGY mark at least as early as 2001 in connection with transportation and storage of fuels and petroleum marketing. Today, over 60 years since Truman Arnold Companies' founding, Complainant has become a leading independent wholesale distributor of refined petroleum products, providing the highest level of logistics, technology, training and unsurpassed service in the United States. Headquartered in Dallas, Texas and supported by its original offices in Texarkana and twelve sales offices across the lower 48 states, Complainant defines the industry expectation of service, innovation, and success. Its customers include gasoline and diesel retailers, industrial users, transportation, oil & gas, waste disposal & recycling, trucking, government, utilities, mining, construction, and other commercial users and resellers of fuel. With an annualized fuel volume in excess of 2.5 billion gallons, Complainant has a vast terminal supply network as well as regional sales offices across the country. Complainant supplies and manages logistics for every industry or consumer sector that needs fuel and refined petroleum products. In 2017, Complainant also adopted its THE ARNOLD COMPANIES mark. Under this segment of the business, Complainant has invested in many different industries including real estate, retail, banking, aviation, technology and many other varied sectors. Complainant asserts rights in the TACENERGY and THE ARNOLD COMPANIES marks through their registration in the United States in, respectively, 2004 and 2022. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its TACENERGY and THE ARNOLD COMPANIES marks because the<tacenergys.com> domain name incorporates the TACENERGY mark in its entirety, merely adding the letter "s" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"); and the <thearn0ldcos.com> domain name consists of a visually similar misspelling of the dominant portion ARNOLD of the THE ARNOLD COMPANIES mark, merely adding the letters "cos" (which stands for "companies") and the ".com" gTLD. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its marks. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names do not resolve to an active website, and they are used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent sent an email to one of Complainant's customers, seeking to induce the customer to send money to a bank account controlled by Respondent; Respondent did so by seeking to collect payment for an outstanding invoice from Complainant's customer; the signature block of the phishing email displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. The disputed domain names are used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual/constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in its marks. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant owns the marks TACENERGY and THE ARNOLD COMPANIES and uses them to distribute refined petroleum products and to invest in various industries. Complainant's rights in its marks date back to, respectively, 2004 and 2022. The disputed domain names were registered in 2025. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. The disputed domain names do not resolve to active websites. They are used in furtherance of an email phishing scheme; the signature block of the phishing email displays Complainant's mark and logo. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The <tacenergys.com> domain name incorporates Complainant's TACENERGY mark in its entirety, merely adding the letter "s" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <tacenergys.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TACENERGY mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The <thearn0ldcos.com> domain name consists of a visually similar misspelling of the dominant portion ARNOLD of the THE ARNOLD COMPANIES mark, merely adding the letters "cos" (which stands for "companies") and the ".com" gTLD. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), such changes are generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum August 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.' These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore the Panel finds that the <thearn0ldcos.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's THE ARNOLD COMPANIES mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has not been licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain names as "wsncmmw / mwsncm". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant presents evidence showing that Respondent used the disputed domain names in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Specifically, Respondent sent an email to one of Complainant's customers, seeking to induce the customer to send money to a bank account controlled by Respondent; Respondent did so by seeking to collect payment for an outstanding invoice from Complainant's customer. Use of a domain name in a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Domain Owner / Knowbe4, FA2204001990823 (Forum May 25, 2022) ("Using a domain name to gain commercially through a fraudulent email scam is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and 4(c)(iii)). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names. Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain names in furtherance of an email phishing scheme. Use of a domain name in a phishing scheme can show registration and use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum Jul. 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use.); see also National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Craig Wood/NOV, FA 1575951 (Forum Sept. 22, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent fraudulently attempted to induce wire transfers by sending e-mails purporting to be from complainant's President and CEO). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the signature block of the phishing email displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Finally, by merely adding a letter "s" to Complainant's TACENERGY mark, Respondent engages in typosquatting. A finding of typosquatting can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Adorama, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) ("Respondent has also engaged in typosquatting, which is additional evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondents who capitalize on common typing errors engage in bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). As such, the Panel finds bad faith typosquatting under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tacenergys.com> and <thearn0ldcos.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: March 11, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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