DECISION

 

Groq, Inc. v. NameSilo, LLC / Domain Administrator

Claim Number: FA2406002101941

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Groq, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Passmore of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is NameSilo, LLC / Domain Administrator ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <groqai.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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 June 12, 2024; Forum received payment on June 12, 2024.

 

On June 12, 2024, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <groqai.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 June 13, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 3, 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@groqai.com. Also on June 13, 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 July 5, 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 in part as follows:

 

Complainant owns several word marks for GROQ and related GROQ-formative marks for use in connection with hardware and software development, with a focus on artificial intelligence and machine learning. Complainant also owns common law rights in the GROQ marks which have been in continuous use, along with United States and foreign trademark registrations for the GROQ Marks.

 

Respondent <groqai.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GROQ mark as the domain name contains Complainant's GROQ trademark and merely adds the suggestive letters "ai" thereto.

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent has created a website intended to convince unsuspecting consumers that Respondent is associated with Complainant's reputable business. Respondent has no trademark rights in GROQ. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services via the at-issue domain name nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent's domain name addresses a website made to appear as if it is Complainant's genuine website to employ Complainant's fame and imply an affiliation with Complainant by using advertising copy and descriptions of Complainant's AI chips and chip architecture.

 

Respond registered and uses the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to suggest an affiliation with Complainant's business while capitalizing on Complainant's fame and notoriety.  Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's marks and website as Respondent's <groqai.com> website references detailed descriptions of Complainant's AI chip technology. Further, Respondent used a WHOIS privacy service when registering <groqai.com> which may also demonstrate bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in GROQ.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the GROQ mark in any capacity.

 

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

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar at-issue domain name and related website to pass off as if they are being sanctioned by 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.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations and other national trademark registrations worldwide for its GROQ trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the GROQ mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.").

 

Respondent's <groqai.com> domain name contains Complainant's GROQ trademark followed by the suggestive term "ai" with all followed by the ".com" top-level. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark do nothing to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <groqai.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GROQ trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); 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.").

 

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 <groqai.com> indicates that "Domain Administrator" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <groqai.com> domain name. As such, 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 uses the confusingly similar <groqai.com> domain name to address a website that appears as if it might be Complainant's genuine website and/or sanctioned by Complainant. Respondent's use of <groqai.com> in this manner to attempt to pass off as Complainant is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

Given the forgoing, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, there is sufficient evidence to allow the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy.

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to address a website that appears as if it might be Complainant's genuine website or sponsored by Complainant. Such use of the domain name to attempt to pass off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to capitalize on the confusion Respondent creates between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name and associated <groqai.com> website. Respondent thereby acts in bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name pursuant Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 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."). 

 

Moreover, Respondent registered <groqai.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in GROQ. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark, from Respondent's inclusion of the suggestive term "ai" in the at-issue domain name, and from Respondent's use of <groqai.com> to pass off as Complainant and address a website made to look and feel like it is associated with Complainant and Complainant's GROQ mark. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's GROQ trademark further indicates that Respondent registered and used the <groqai.com> domain name in 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 <groqai.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco,  Panelist

Dated: July 6, 2024