Mvvmenergy.com

The timeline behind mvvmenergy.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.

DECISION Caterpillar Energy Solutions GmbH v. John Corker Claim Number: FA2602002207731 PARTIES Complainant is Caterpillar Energy Solutions GmbH ("Complainant"), represented by AJ Schumacher of Kelly IP, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is John Corker ("Respondent"), Oregon, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <mvvmenergy.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 27, 2026; Forum received payment on February 27, 2026. On March 2, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mvvmenergy.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 March 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 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@mvvmenergy.com. Also on March 9, 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 31, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows: Complainant, a Caterpillar company, owns and operates the MWM brand, which is one of the leading and most renowned suppliers of highly efficient and eco-friendly complete systems for distributed energy and heat generation. Complainant owns the trade name, trademark, and service mark MWM, and its rights in the MWM mark date back to at least as early as 1922. In addition to its common-law trademark rights in its MWM marks based on its extensive and continuous use of those marks for years, Complainant owns trademark registrations for its MWM marks in jurisdictions around the world, including in the European Union and U.S. THE DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE MWM MARKS. Complainant's common law rights and trademark registrations for its MWM marks covering the EU and the U.S. establish Complainant's rights to the marks because the registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority allows a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark under the Policy. The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MWM marks, including because the domain name consists of a typosquatted version of the MWM mark, namely, MVVM, which differs by substituting two "V"s for the visually similar letter "W" (i.e., MWM v. MVVM), in combination with the descriptive term ENERGY, which relates to Complainant's business, and the domain extension ".com." These alterations/additions are inadequate to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's MWM marks. The addition of generic or descriptive terms, or other terms related to a complainant's business, to a mark in a domain, such as the term "energy" here, is not sufficient to distinguish the domains from Complainant's mark and domain name extensions are irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE DOMAIN NAME. The WHOIS record for the at-issue domain name was initially privacy protected and did not identify a registrant but the disclosed registration information received from the registrar lists the owner of the domain name as "John Corker." This WHOIS and registration information, and the lack of information and evidence in the record to the contrary, is evidence that Respondent is not commonly known as the domain name or any derivation of the domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent, or any associated person or entity, to use or register the MWM marks in any manner, including in the domain name, nor is Respondent, the domain name, or any other associated person or entity a current or former licensee of Complainant and its MWM marks. Complainant also has no knowledge that Respondent, or any other person or entity associated therewith, are, or have ever been, commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name under UDRP ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) since Respondent incorporated the domain name into at least email addresses and utilized the email addresses to impersonate Complainant when sending emails, which also featured Complainant's parent company Caterpillar's intellectual property without authorization, regarding financial account and financial payment information to solicit fraudulent financial payments. In addition, the domain name currently resolves to a landing webpage and is thus effectively inactive. Using domain name to resolve to inactive or inaccessible websites, or parked websites, or passively holding disputed domain names, does not amount to a bona fide use or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain names such that respondents can establish legitimate rights or interests in the at-issue domain name under the UDRP Policy. Further, Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name that features a close and highly visually similar misspelling of Complainant's MWM mark (i.e., MWM v. MVVM) constitutes typosquatting and further evidences that Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the domain name. Further, the Panel may presume that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because Respondent did not reply in this case. RESPONDENT'S BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE OF THE DOMAIN. Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the domain name or activities associated with the domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the domain name and/or Respondent's activities, including the associated email addresses and which feature the at-issue domain name. The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MWM marks, including because the domain name consists of a typosquatted version of the MWM mark, namely, MVVM, which differs by substituting two "V"s for the visually similar letter "W," in combination with the descriptive term ENERGY, which relates to Complainant's business, and the domain extension ".com." Respondent incorporated the domain name into email addresses to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent financial scheme. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name in this manner to impersonate Complainant or pass itself off as affiliated with Complainant is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace, infringes Complainant's intellectual property, disrupts Complainant's business, and unquestionably indicates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii), (iv). Next, the domain name currently resolves to a landing webpage and is thus effectively inactive. This is further evidence of bad faith. Respondent, in registering the domain name, has engaged in typosquatting which has consistently been found to constitute an independent ground of bad faith under prior UDRP decisions. Additionally, Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's prior rights in its MWM marks, including because of (i) Complainant's long-term prior use of its MWM marks; (ii) the domain name was registered years after Complainant's first use of the MWM marks; (iii) the domain name consists of a clear typosquatted misspelling of Complainant's MWM mark; and (iv) the domain name was incorporated into email addresses used to impersonate Complainant in connection with a fraudulent financial scheme. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the MWM. Complainant acquired such rights prior to Respondent registration of <mvvmenergy.com> Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email used to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of fraud. 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Any of Complainant's multiple trademark registrations for MWM is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See 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). Respondent's <mvvmenergy.com> domain name consists of Complainant's MWM trademark with its letter "w" replace by the look alike pair of the letter "v" i.e. "vv," followed by the term "energy," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's MWM trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <mvvmenergy.com> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶4 (a)(i). 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, 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."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Rights or Legitimate Interests 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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name."). The WHOIS information for <mvvmenergy.com> leads to a finding that "John Corker" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <mvvmenergy.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent's <mvvmenergy.com> domain name is used to host email pretending to originate from Complainant. Respondent's sham email is designed to deceive third parties regarding the email's source and to enable Respondent to fraudulently have the recipient direct funds supposedly intended for Complainant to an account specified by and controlled by Respondent. Such use of <mvvmenergy.com> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be 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)). Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <mvvmenergy.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. First, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email that it sends to parties connected with Complainant to communicate about financial accounts and financial payment information as part of a scheme to collect payments from such parties. The emails are dressed with intellectual property relating to Complainant's parent company, such as the CATERPILLAR trademark, to further Respondent's intent to impersonate Complainant and thereby fool the email recipient into directing funds to an account controlled by Respondent. The fact that Respondent engages in identity theft and email fraud using the <mvvmenergy.com> domain name unequivocally demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <mvvmenergy.com>. See Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy."); see also Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also, Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the at-issue domain name as an email address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Here, Respondent introduces typographical errors into Complainant's trademark to render a look alike version of MWM and then uses the resulting string in its confusingly similar <mvvmenergy.com> domain name. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith registration and use of <mvvmenergy.com>. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MWM mark when it registered <mvvmenergy.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to impersonate Complainant in email correspondence. Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's rights in MWM further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <mvvmenergy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: April 1, 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.