WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Sempra Energy Corporation v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Adeyemi Akinbade, Akerele Microsmail Case No. D2018-0875 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Sempra Energy Corporation of San Diego, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Sideman & Bancroft LLP, United States.

The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama City, Panama / Adeyemi Akinbade, Akerele Microsmail of Agungi, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 19, 2018. On April 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 20 2018, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 24, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 16, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 18, 2018.

The Center appointed David Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on June 1, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Sempra Energy Corporation, is a company founded in 1998 which develops and operates energy infrastructure projects, operates energy utilities and provides related products directly to energy consumers throughout North and South America. The Complainant has registered trade mark rights in the term SEMPRA, including but not limited to:

- European Union Trade Mark No. 002418911, SEMPRA, registered on August 22, 2003 for services in classes 35, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42,

- United States Trade Mark No. 3874530, SEMPRA, registered on November 9, 2010 for services in class 39 and

- United States Trade Mark No. 3874531, SEMPRA, registered on November 9, 2010 for services in class 40.

The Respondent appears to be an individual based in Nigeria. No additional information about the Respondent is known.

The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on March 26, 2018. It was being used by the Respondent to send emails misrepresenting itself as the employees of the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that it has developed a strong name and reputation within the industry and among members of the consuming public as a leading developer of energy infrastructure and utility provider. The Complainant contends that its SEMPRA trade marks are distinctive indicators of the source of its goods and services. As evidence, the Complainant has supplied a list of its trade mark registrations along with copies of representative registration certificates for the SEMPRA trade marks worldwide.

Furthermore, the Complainant claims to be the owner of a number of generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) domain names which contain SEMPRA trade marks and were registered years prior to the date Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant submits that these domain names, registered between 1997 and 2004, include, but are not limited to, , , , and .

In response to each of the requirements under the Policy, the Complainant asserts as follows:

(i) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is exploiting the substantial goodwill that Complainant has built in its trade marks by using an email address connected to the Domain Name in order to intercept communications between the Complainant and the Complainant’s vendor to fraudulently induce the latter to wire payment to a bank account which is not associated with Complainant. According to the Complainant, the fact that Respondent wholly incorporated SEMPRA trade marks in the Domain Name, and maintained the SEMPRA trade marks in the email signature block associated with the Domain Name, is likely to cause the average Internet user, or recipient of an email from an associated email address of the Domain Name to assume, wrongly, that the Respondent is affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise related to the Complainant.

The Complainant states that since the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, the misspelling of the descriptive term “utilities” fails to add adequately distinguishing indicia and actually increases the likelihood of confusion considering the descriptiveness of “utilities” in connection with the Complainant’s services. The Complainant submits that this is further supported by the presence of proven confusion as the Complainant's vendor actually believed that the emails it received which were associated with the Domain Name were affiliated with, sponsored, or approved by the Complainant.

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant claims that it has established a prima facie case, sufficient to shift the evidentiary burden to the Respondent.

Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot overcome its evidentiary burden to show any legitimate rights in respect of the Domain Name as (i) the Respondent's use of the Domain Name is not in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services, (ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and (iii) the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.

(iii) The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complainant argues that considering the facts and circumstances of the instant case, bad faith and intent can clearly be inferred in light of the actions taken by the Respondent when re