Natriumplant.com + 6 more domains

The timeline behind natriumplant.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 TerraPower, LLC v. Guiraa Abdelhamid Claim Number: FA2601002198918 PARTIES Complainant is TerraPower, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Lindsay M.R. Jones of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Guiraa Abdelhamid ("Respondent"), Algeria. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <natriumplant.com>, <natriumplants.com>, <thenatriumreactor.com>, <natriumplant.info>, <natriumplant.link>, <thenatriumplant.com>, and <thenatriumplants.com>, registered with Unstoppable Domains 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 9, 2026; Forum received payment on January 9, 2026. On January 12 and 13, 2026, Unstoppable Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <natriumplant.com>, <natriumplants.com>, <thenatriumreactor.com>, <natriumplant.info>, <natriumplant.link>, <thenatriumplant.com>, <thenatriumplants.com> domain names are registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Unstoppable Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Unstoppable Domains 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 January 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 2026 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@natriumplant.com, postmaster@natriumplants.com, postmaster@thenatriumreactor.com, postmaster@natriumplant.info, postmaster@natriumplant.link, postmaster@thenatriumplant.com, and postmaster@thenatriumplants.com. Also on January 14, 2026, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 9, 2026. On February 9, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1- Complainant, TerraPower is a U.S. based nuclear innovation company focused on developing next-generation nuclear technologies founded in 2006. 2- Complaint's main project is the NATRIUM reactor, a sodium-cooled fast reactor paired with molten salt energy storage, which was adopted in 2020. 3- Complainant's owns trademark rights and common law trademark rights in its NATRIUM brand in connection with nuclear technology. 4- Respondent registered some of the disputed domain names within the same short period between June 11, 2024 and October 4, 2025. 5- Respondent also purchased some of the disputed domain names and attempted to sell them to TerraPower in bad faith. 6- The disputed domain names contain the entirety of TerraPower's NATRIUM marks with additional generic terms related to Complainant's activities (plant and reactor) and they are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. 7- Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. 8- The disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith. B. Respondent 1- The disputed domain names are not identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, since they are based on a generic term of universal use, belonging to the scientific public domain, devoid of intrinsic distinctiveness. 2- The term "Natrium" corresponds to the international scientific name, in Latin, of the chemical element sodium, whose symbol on the periodic table is "Na". 3- The disputed domain name falls within the well-established UDRP principle that domain names composed of technical or descriptive terms referring to an underlying technology do not create confusing similarity merely because a complainant has adopted the same terminology for a specific project. 4- Having adopted a pre-existing scientific term, the scope of protection of the Complainant's trademark must necessarily be narrow. 5- Respondent is a professional domain investor operating under a legitimate and established business model, which is the commercialization of generic domain names. 6- Respondent has a legitimate interest in the set of domain names in dispute and did not acquire them to market them specifically with the company TERRA POWER, but acquired the domains based on its role as a sales agent of domains in specific businesses or commercial areas 7- Respondent's use of the domain name is non-existent, as the domain names remain inactive. 8- Respondent has no intention to take unfair advantage of another's trademark. FINDINGS Complainant, TerraPower, LLC, owns NATRIUM trademark in connection with nuclear technology. Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain names, purchased some of them and attempted to sell them to TerraPower in bad faith. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the NATRIUM mark through trademark registrations (Annex 3). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the NATRIUM mark, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names, <natriumplant.com>, <natriumplants.com>, <thenatriumreactor.com>, <natriumplant.info>, <natriumplant.link>, <thenatriumplant.com>, and <thenatriumplants.com> are nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's NATRIUM trademark. Two include the trademark (NATRIUM) and Respondent only adds the generic terms "plant" and "plants" and the gTLD .com; two other domain names include the trademark (NATRIUM) and Respondent only adds the generic terms "the" and "plant" and "the" and "plants" and the gTLD .com. Two other domain names include the trademark (NATRIUM) and Respondent only adds the generic term "plant" and the gTLDs .info and .link. Finally, Respondent also registered a domain name with the trademark (NATRIUM) and the generic terms "the" and "reactor" and the gTLD .com The Panel concludes that the slight differences in the disputed domain names can lead the consumers into confusion about the products identified. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."). See also Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v George Ring, FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that, although a respondent's domain name <lukasfilm.com> incorporated the LUCASFILM mark of another and merely substituted a 'k' for the 'c,' it was nonetheless confusingly similar to that mark). The Panel finds that it is clear that Respondent knew that NATRIUM belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added generic related terms (related to Complainant's activities) and/or gTLDs. The Panel finds that the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive and they are related to Complainant's activities. (See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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"). As regards to Respondent's grounds about impossibility for Complainant to arrogate to itself exclusive rights on NATRIUM because it is a generic scientific designation that is freely usable, the Panel finds that the fact that Complainant has got trademark rights on that term is sufficient to demonstrate rights per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Cross Optical Group, Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org / Domain Admin, FA 1412176 (Forum Dec. 13, 2011) ("Respondent asserts that the <costasunglasses.com> domain name is comprised of common and generic terms and as such cannot be found to be confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Panel finds that such a determination is not necessary under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) as this portion of the Policy considers only whether Complainant has rights in the mark and whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.) See Precious Puppies of Florida, Inc. v. kc, FA 1028247 (Forum Aug. 10, 2007) (examining Respondent's generic terms arguments only under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and not under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). The Panel finds that the domain names are almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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"). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <natriumplant.com>, <natriumplants.com>, <thenatriumreactor.com>, <natriumplant.info>, <natriumplant.link>, <thenatriumplant.com>, and <thenatriumplants.com> domain names because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the NATRIUM mark. 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)"). In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names (Annex 1). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain names. The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Annex 6). The domain names were registered/purchased for sale. Respondent argues that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the set of domain names in dispute since the acquisition of these is due to the exercise of a legitimate unregulated commercial activity, which is the commercialization of generic domain names. In this respect the Panel finds that the fact that Respondent does not check if it is also acquiring trademarks from third parties shows Respondent lacks of bona fide. See Superior Play Systems, Inc. v. Marchex Sales / Brendhan Hight, FA 1379684 (Forum May 23, 2011) (It thus seems disingenuous for Respondent to claim it acquires domains because of the target domain name's descriptive value. And even if Respondent's motivation is as stated, the fact that Respondent cares not that it also is acquiring trademarked names is troubling and further calls into question the bona fide nature of Respondent's endeavors). The Panel finds that Respondent is not using disputed domain names to make bona fide offerings of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or to make legitimate noncommercial or fair uses under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) and further concludes that Respondent lacks rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain names. This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant has proved trademark rights and use of it prior to the domain names' date of registration. (Annexes 1, 3 and 5). Since the disputed domain names include Complainant's trademark along with generic terms related to Complainant's goods and services, and based on the way the disputed domain names were registered/purchase and offered to Complainant for sale (Annex 6), the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registered/purchase the domain names. Registration was done in bad faith. The disputed domains' homepage does not currently resolve to any active content; however, it can also be considered a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing, FA 2111371 (Forum, Sept. 12, 2024), "Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use"). Respondent argues that Respondent has registered and acquired the disputed domain names as a result of its commercial activity (commercialization of generic domain names for sale). According to the evidence submitted by Complainant (Annex 6), Respondent offered the domain names for sale. The Panel finds a bad faith sign in this fact. See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) ("Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy" ¶ 4(b)(i)."). The Panel also finds bad faith in the fact that Respondent registered/acquired generic domain names without even considering if third parties could have rights on them. See Superior Play Systems, Inc. v. Marchex Sales / Brendhan Hight, FA 1379684 (Forum May 23, 2011) (This indifference is at Respondent's peril and indicates bad faith where, as here, the domain name is the trademark of another and where, as here, the domain name is used to direct Internet users to a website which contains links to Complainant's competitors and otherwise attempts to trade on the trademark value of Complainant's mark for commercial gain). Finally, the Panel also points out that the choice of the term NATRIUM, along with other generic terms that precisely allude to the type of activity Complainant has been carrying out for years, demonstrates that both the registration and use of the disputed domain names were made in bad faith. In addition, the fact that Respondent has adopted a trademark, with use, and in conjunction with technical terms that refer to the exact activity carried out by the trademark owner demonstrates bad faith, and the supposed weakness or generic nature of the trademark must be disregarded. The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <natriumplant.com>, <natriumplants.com>, <thenatriumreactor.com>, <natriumplant.info>, <natriumplant.link>, <thenatriumplant.com>, and <thenatriumplants.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. __________________________________________________________________ Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: February 20, 2026 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.