Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is EntergyShaw, L.L.C. , Baton Rouge, LA, USA ("Complainant") represented by Russel O. Primeaux, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, Mccowan & Jarman. The Respondent is CPIC Net, Closter, NJ, USA ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are entergyshaw.com, entergy-shaw.com registered with Network Solutions.

The Panelist certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as the panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum ("the Forum") electronically on November 7, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 8, 2000.

On November 9, 2000, Network Solutions confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names entergyshaw.com, entergy-shaw.com are registered with Network Solutions and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s UDRP.

On November 9, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of November 29, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@entergyshaw.com, and postmaster@entergy-shaw.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On December 4, 2000, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Uniform Rules "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges the following in accordance with ICANN Policy 4

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a response in this matter.

Entergy Corporation ("Entergy"), one of the two co-owners of EntergyShaw, L.L.C., is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,387,356, which was issued on September 19, 2000. The mark has been in use since as early as 1996.

Entergy owns, manages, or invests in power plants, and delivers electricity to over 2.5 million customers in portions of Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Entergy is also a leading provider of wholesale energy, marketing and trading services. Entergy ranks among the largest U.S. utility companies.

The Shaw Group, Inc., ("Shaw") the other co-owner of EntergyShaw, L.L.C., has been using the word "Shaw" in connection with its industrial services since 1987. Shaw is the largest supplier of fabricated piping systems and services in the world. Shaw offers comprehensive solutions consisting of integrated engineering and design, pipe fabrication, construction and maintenance services and the manufacture of specialty pipe fittings and supports to the power generation, crude oil refining, chemical and petrochemical processing and oil & gas exploration and production industries.

Shaw is also a leading provider of full-service, value-added engineering, procurement, construction, consultation and environmental services to the power generation, process, governmental and industrial markets. Shaw and its subsidiaries have approximately 13,000 employees with offices in the United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, Venezuela and Bahrain.

Both Entergy and Shaw are publicly traded companies, and both are listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

Paragraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy ("Policy") requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

The domain names at issue, entergyshaw.com and entergy-shaw.com are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks. The evidence idicates that Complainant holds a registered trademark in connnection with Engergy. In addition, Complainant has common law rights in the SHAW mark, by virtue of its extensive and exclusive use, giving rise to secondary meaning. See MatchNet PLC. V. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (citing The British Broadcasting Corp. v. Jaime Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000)) (noting that the UDRP "does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain names" and applying the UDRP to "unregistered trademarks and service marks").

In response to Complainant’s press release regarding a signed letter of inent to create a joint venture between Entergy and Shaw, forming EntergyShaw L.L.C., Respondent registered the domain names at issue. Apart from the addition of a hyphen and the TLD ‘.com,’ the domain names are identical to Complainant’s joint venture company, EntergyShaw L.L.C. See The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co. v. Club Car Executive Transportation and Dennis Rooney, D2000-0611 (WIPO Sept. 18, 2000) (finding that removing a hyphen in the domain names is not sufficient to differentiate the domain names from the mark).

Additionally, the joint venture company name, as well as the domain names at issue, are comprised of Complainant’s ENTERGY and SHAW marks. See Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Smithberger and QUIXTAR-IBO, D2000-0138 (WIPO Apr. 19, 2000) (finding that because the domain name <quixtar-sign-up.com> incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s distinctive mark, QUIXTAR, the domain name is confusingly similar).

In light of the preceding, this Panelist finds that the domain names at issue are confusingly similar to marks in which Complainant has rights, satisfying ICANN Policy 4(a)(i).

Respondent has not asserted any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain names at issue. Therefore, this Panelist will make its determination based solely on the complaint. See ICANN Rule 14(a).

The evidence therein indicates that Respondent registered the domain names at issue on the same day Complainant issue a press release regarding a forthcoming joint venture, to be known as EntergyShaw L.L.C. Seizing the moment, Respondent immediately registered the domain names at issue. However, mere registration of a domain name does not confer any rights or legitimate interest. And since registration, Respondent has apparently not made any use of the domain names at issue. The combination of these two facts leads this Panelist to conclude that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names at issue. See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. D3M Virtual Reality Inc. and D3M Domain Sales, AF-0336 (eResolution Sept. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where no such right or interest is immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent has not come forward to suggest any such right or interest that it may possess).

Under the ICANN Policy, evidence of bad faith includes circumstances indicating that:

This is not to say that Respondent’s behavior would always amount to bad faith. But where Respondent repeatedly registers domain names corresponding to the trademarks and service marks of others, Respondent’s behavior will not be protected by the ICANN Policy. See CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Worldwide Webs, Inc., D2000-0834 (WIPO Sept. 4, 2000) ("There is nothing inherently wrongful in the offer or sale of domain names, without more, such as to justify a finding of bad faith under the Policy. However, the fact that domain name registrants may legitimately and in good faith sell domain names does not imply a right in such registrants to sell domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks or service marks of others without their consent.")

For the foregoing reasons, this Panelist determines that the requested relief be granted. Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain names entergyshaw.com and entergy-shaw.com be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.