Masssavetoday.com

The timeline behind masssavetoday.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION The RCS Network v. Jane Cox / Mass Electric and Savings Claim Number: FA2506002161320 PARTIES Complainant is The RCS Network ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Loeb of Rich May, P.C., Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Jane Cox / Mass Electric and Savings ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <masssavetoday.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd. 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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 17, 2025; Forum received payment on June 17, 2025. On June 30, 2025, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <masssavetoday.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. 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 July 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 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@masssavetoday.com. Also on July 1, 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 July 22, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is an unincorporated collaborative association of Massachusetts utility companies and energy efficiency services providers. Among the services and benefits offered by Complainant on its <masssave.com> website, and through other channels, are no-cost home energy audits for Massachusetts residents, and information regarding rebates and incentives available to Massachusetts residents on their purchases of energy-efficient appliances and other goods. Complainant offers such services and benefits in furtherance of objectives established for Massachusetts utility companies by Massachusetts law. The trademark MASS SAVE was first used in 2004 and is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 3,136,287 issued August 29, 2006). The <masssavetoday.com> domain name, registered on May 24, 2025, is confusingly similar to the MASS SAVE mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds only the generic word "today" and the ".com" TLD. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it hosts a website that offers services that compete with Complainant which is not a bona fide offering. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on Respondent's above-mentioned activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS - Complainant owns trademark rights in the MASS SAVE mark and the <masssavetoday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to such mark; - Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is used to pass itself off as Complainant and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name; and - The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as Complainant. 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 Complainant asserts rights in the MASS SAVE mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides screenshots from the USPTO website evidencing the details of its registration. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <masssavetoday.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the MASS SAVE mark because it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds the term "today" and the ".com" TLD. Where the dominant portion of a mark is incorporated into a domain name, the addition of generic or descriptive terms typically does not negate any confusing similarity with an asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 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.") The Panel notes that Complainant's USPTO registration contains a disclaimer of the word "Mass" apart from the mark as a whole. Nevertheless, as the entire MASS SAVE mark is clearly discernable in the <masssavetoday.com> domain name, and only the generic term "today" and the ".com" TLD are added to the mark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <masssavetoday.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the MASS SAVE mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the <masssavetoday.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identifies Respondent as "Jane Cox / Mass Electric And Savings" however, Respondent has not participated in these proceedings and so there is no evidence to corroborate the WHOIS record. Further, the fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy."). Furthermore, Complainant specifically notes that "Respondent has not sought, nor has Complainant granted, a license or permission to Respondent to use Complainant's mark in any way" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Next, addressing Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), the Complaint asserts that Respondent does not use its domain in the bona fide sale of goods or services as the services offered on its website are directly competitive to those provided by Complainant. Rather, it claims that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert and deceive customers. Passing oneself off as a complainant and diverting users to a respondent's webpage, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug.21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the <masssavetoday.com> website which prominently bears the term MASS SAVE at the top. Below this appears the text "Start saving money on your Electric Bill. Save energy at home with expert guidance, services, rebates and incentives. Simply select your Utility provider and schedule a time for your home energy assessment" followed by a click button labeled "Start Saving Today". When the button is clicked, the user is brought to a form requesting name, address, phone, and email information. Further down the page are displayed the graphic logos of electricity service providers, and these very same are shown on Complainant's own <masssave.com> website, screenshots of which have also been submitted. From this evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent is seeking to pass itself off as Complainant and is thus not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). As noted above, this shifts the burden of proof to Respondent but it has not participated in these proceedings and so has not rebutted Complainant's case. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Although not addressed in the Complaint, a foundational question under ¶ 4(a)(iii) is whether or not Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in its MASS SAVE mark at the time it registered the <masssavetoday.com> domain name. Some attribution of knowledge of a complainant's trademark, whether actual, constructive, or based upon a conclusion that a respondent should have known of the mark, is inherently prerequisite to a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 573 (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2024) ("Claims of cybersquatting rest in part on proof that respondents are motivated in their acquisitions by the values of marks corresponding to the disputed domain names; and it is that awareness of complainant's right that is said to support a finding of abusive registration."); See also USA Video Interactive Corporation v. B.G. Enterprises, D2000-1052 (WIPO Dec. 13, 2000) (claim denied where "Respondent registered and used the domain name without knowledge of Complainant for a bona fide commercial purpose."). Bad faith, under the Policy, is predicated on a respondent specifically targeting the asserted mark of the complainant and this "can be established by either direct evidence (e.g. content of the website) or circumstantial evidence such as strength of the mark and nature of a disputed domain name (e.g. mark plus a term describing Complainant's business), timing of registration of a domain name and timing of trademark registration, geographic proximity of the parties." UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.3 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org). The Complaint has not made any specific claim relating to the reputation of its MASS SAVE mark but it has submitted screenshots of its own <masssave.com> website which uses the mark and references Complainant's social media accounts on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, and Instagram and these page do present direct evidence of activity which indicates that Complainant's mark has been extensively used and gained a measure of reputation, at least with the public in the state of Massachusetts. This, combined with Respondent's offering of services that are identical to those provided by Complainant lead the Panel to find it quite likely that Respondent had prior knowledge of the MASS SAVE mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. Next, the Complaint asserts that Respondent is offering services in competition with Complainant and is seeking commercial gain based on confusion with the MASS SAVE mark. This sets out claims for bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Zapier, Inc. v. Manohar Chapalamadugu / Agile CRM Inc., FA 2049262 (Forum July 23, 2023) (where the disputed "domain name resolves to a website that purports to do exactly what Complainant does", the Panel found that Respondent is "using the disputed domain name to offer competing services under the same mark, and thus, attracting unsuspecting Zapier customers to its infringing website, and disrupting and damaging Zapier's business."). Here, Complainant states that: A Massachusetts statute called "An Act Relative to Green Communities," Chapter 169 of the Acts of 2008, requires Massachusetts utilities to engage in unprecedented levels of energy efficiency programming. Based on this Act, as well as regulatory oversight by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities, along with the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources and the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General, the utilities have agreed to attain certain levels of energy savings. The Complainant (an unincorporated association of Massachusetts utilities) relies substantially on its "Mass Save initiative," using its well-recognized MASS SAVE trademark, in order to meet its goals. It then claims, without rebuttal, that "Respondent is using the disputed domain name to operate a website that purports to offer the same services and benefits offered or promoted by Complainant (including home energy audits)." Based on the screenshots submitted into evidence, the Panel acknowledges that Respondent does use the MASS SAVE mark to offer "home energy assessment" services that appear to compete with Complainant's own audits under the mark. As Respondent uses the <masssavetoday.com> domain name and website to offer services that compete with Complainant's own services and its registered MASS SAVE trademark, by a preponderance of the evidence, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is used in bad faith to target and compete with Complainant under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <masssavetoday.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________________________________ Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: July 24, 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.