DECISION

 

Eleven Labs Inc. v. Nilmini Rathnayaka

Claim Number: FA2309002063760

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Eleven Labs Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Nilmini Rathnayaka ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <llelevenlabs.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 27, 2023; Forum received payment on September 27, 2023.

 

On September 28, 2023, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <llelevenlabs.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 October 2, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 23, 2023 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@llelevenlabs.com. Also on October 2, 2023, 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. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.

 

On October 24, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a revolutionary artificial intelligence ("AI") research and deployment company that aims to make content universally accessible in all languages. It is developing speech synthesis and text-to-speech software using AI and deep learning for on-demand multilingual audio support across numerous fields including education, streaming, audiobooks, gaming, movies, and realtime conversation. Complainant states that it adopted its current name, Eleven Labs, in January 2022. Since that time, Complainant has extensively used the LLELEVENLABS mark to promote its natural-sounding speech synthesis and text-to-speech software and related offerings. Complainant registered the <elevenlabs.io> domain name on December 15, 2021 to promote its services on a website located at that page. Complainant asserts common law rights in the LLELEVENLABS mark.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its LLELEVENLABS mark as the domain name incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name as Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark nor is there any evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nor is Respondent using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website attempts to pass itself off as Complainant to offer competing products. The resolving website employs a nearly identical look-and-feel as compared to the content featured on Complainant's legitimate website and likewise offers, or at least advertises, AI speech software and related services. The homepage associated with the disputed domain name uses the same white, black, and gray color scheme as the homepage on Complainant's website and displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo. It links to Complainant's social media accounts, including LinkedIn, Twitter, Discord, YouTube, and GitHub. In addition, the resolving website attempts to collect visitor information via a "Get Started Free" icon at the top of the homepage, which prompts visitors to "sign up" by entering their personally identifiable information.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith by using it to confuse internet users into believing that Respondent's domain name is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name will perpetuate fraud in hopes that consumers will associate the domain name with Complainant and give away personal information. The Resolving website offers competing services. Respondent had constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: "I apologize for my error. I created this website without any intention of tarnishing your reputation. Visitors to my domain will be redirected to yours, ensuring no misuse. I regret if my actions have inadvertently harmed your brand. I am prepared to take down the website unconditionally."

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

The Panel interprets Respondent's email to Forum as indicating consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <llelevenlabs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 24, 2023