DECISION

 

Anthropic, PBC v. Muhammad Ahmad

Claim Number: FA2403002087534

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Anthropic, PBC ("Complainant"), represented by Chintan A. Desai of Lippes Mathias LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Muhammad Ahmad ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <claudeai.pro>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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 March 8, 2024; Forum received payment on March 8, 2024.

 

On March 8, 2024, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <claudeai.pro> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 March 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 1, 2024 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@claudeai.pro. Also on March 12, 2024, 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 April 2, 2024, 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 as follows:

Complainant is a leading artificial intelligence (AI) safety and research company focused on building reliable, interpretable and steerable AI systems. Complainant has developed a world-class interdisciplinary team with vast experience in machine learning, physics, public policy, and product development.

 

Complainant's trademark registration with numerous recognized trademark authorities conclusively demonstrates Complainant's rights in the CLAUDE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant currently utilizes the <claude.ai> domain name and <anthropic.com> domain name to advertise its well-recognized AI product bearing the CLAUDE mark and to highlight its research efforts regarding CLAUDE.

 

Respondent's <claudeai.pro> domain name is virtually identical to Complainant's CLAUDE trademark. Respondent's <claudeai.pro> domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant's mark, paired with the generic or descriptive term "ai" (artificial intelligence) and the gTLD ".pro".

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademarks. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has not used the at-issue domain name to reflect a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to the Policy. Instead, Respondent likely profits from the domain name's addressing a website pretending to be related to Complainant and displaying links and advertisement to third-parties not affiliated with Complainant. Respondent offered the domain name to Complainant for $40,000. 

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent was aware of Complainant's CLAUDE trademark when it registered <claudeai.pro> since Complainant's launch of CLAUDE was well publicized prior to Respondent's registering <claudeai.pro> as a domain name. Complainant's agent received an email offering the domain name for sale to Complainant for $40,000. Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark fostering the false assumption that the <claudeai.pro> domain name website's content was sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Further, Respondent has done so with the intent to attract internet users to its website to presumably receive click-through fees, all for Respondent's commercial gain. Respondent uses a privacy shield.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the CLAUDE trademark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CLAUDE trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and to address a website looking like it might be Complainant's official website that contains embedded links and advertisements. Respondent attempted to sell the at-issue domain name to Complainant.

 

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.

 

Respondent's WIPO trademark registration for CLAUDE, or any other bona fide registration for such mark, 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 <claudeai.pro> domain name contains Complainant's CLAUDE mark followed by the highly suggestive term "ai" with all followed by the top-level domain name, ".pro". The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish Respondent's <claudeai.pro> domain name from Complainant's CLAUDE trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <claudeai.pro> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's CLAUDE mark. See 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.").

 

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).

 

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 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)").

 

The WHOIS information for <claudeai.pro> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Muhammad Ahmad" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <claudeai.pro> domain name or by CLAUDE. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <claudeai.pro> or any variation thereof for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). 

 

Respondent uses <claudeai.pro> to pass itself off as Complainant. The website addressed by the at-issue domain name appears that it might be Complainant's official website and there Respondent apparently profits from embedded third-party links and advertisements from which Respondent's likely receives revenue. Respondent's use the of the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"); See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA 1613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant's business).

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <claudeai.pro> domain name to address a website dressed like it may be Complainant's official website. Using the confusingly similar <claudeai.pro> domain name in such manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and falsely indicates that there is a sanctioned relationship between Complainant and Respondent when there is no such relationship. Such use of the domain name thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant's website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). Notably, Respondent's website hosts embedded third-party links and advertising from which Respondent's presumably profits. Thereby, Respondent's bad faith is additionally demonstrated. See Plain Green, LLC v. wenqiang tang, FA 1621656 (Forum July 1, 2015) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to feature generic third-party hyperlinks constituted bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting internet users seeking the complainant's website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).

 

Next after being contacted by Complainant's representative, Respondent requested $40,000 from Complainant to transfer <claudeai.pro> to Complainant and indicated that it was offered $35,000 for the domain name from a third party. Respondent's excessive demand to sell the domain name to Complainant shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Kenechukwu Okoli, FA 1821759 (Forum Jan. 13, 2019) ("The domain name's website listed the domain name for sale for $9,150. Respondent also contacted Complainant directly to offer the domain name for sale. Doing so suggests bad faith registration and use of the <lufthansamiles.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CLAUDE mark when it registered <claudeai.pro>as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of the CLAUDE mark given Complainant's extensive promotion of its CLAUDE product prior to Respondent's registration of <claudeai.pro> and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website that might be mistakenly taken for Complainant's genuine website. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in CLAUDE shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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 <claudeai.pro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: April 2, 2024