DECISION

 

Chai Research Corp. v. liu fang

Claim Number: FA2504002148206

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Chai Research Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Kim Boyle of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is liu fang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chaibot.net>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

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.

 

Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 1, 2025; Forum received payment on April 1, 2025.

 

On April 2, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chaibot.net> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 April 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 24, 2025 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@chaibot.net. Also on April 4, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Chinese and English.

 

On April 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is written in Chinese, thereby initially making this the language of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 11(a). However, Complainant requests that this Panel exercise its discretion, under Rules 10(b) and (c) and determine that English be the language of the proceedings. In support of its request, Complainant notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website entirely in English and asserts that "conducting these proceedings in a language other than English will cause Complainant to incur significant additional burden and delay to translate the Complaint, now amended, and other documents." The Panel notes Complainant's submission of screenshots of Respondent's website and these do appear entirely in the English language. Further, in response to its receipt of the Complaint, Respondent has submitted an email to Forum which is also in the English language. In Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, D2008-1191 (WIPO Oct. 15, 2008) the Panel held that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where "the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English." In light of the fact that Respondent's website and email appear entirely in English and taking into account the delay and further expense that would be caused from requiring the Complainant to submit documents in Chinese, the Panel determines that the remainder of these proceedings may be conducted in English without prejudice to the Respondent.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the leading artificial intelligence ("AI") platform, performing research in conversational generative artificial intelligence. It has established a reputation for leading research and applications of chat dialogs with AI, and its platform, offered under the trademark CHAI, combines large language models ("LLM") from its millions of human users into a meta-model which vastly exceeds the capabilities of any individual model. Complainant is the owner of the CHAI trademark, which is registered or the subject of pending trademark applications in many countries around the world for downloadable software using artificial intelligence for chatting and communications; and providing temporary use of online non-downloadable software and mobile applications using artificial intelligence for chatting and communications (e.g., International Reg. No. 1770831 dated December 6, 2023; Australia Reg. No. 2419457 dated December 6, 2023; U.S.A. application Ser. No. 98297278 dated December 4, 2023; and Canada application Ser. No. 2304698 dated December 6, 2023). In addition, Complainant owns prior common law trademark rights in the mark dating back to March 31, 2021.

 

The <chaibot.net> domain name, registered on October 6, 2023, is confusingly similar to the CHAI mark as it includes the mark in its entirety along with the generic or descriptive term "bot" and the gTLD, ".net".

 

Respondent has not rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it resolves to a website that displays the CHAI mark and its associated graphic logo, and creates the false impression that the site originates with or is associated with Complainant.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith as shown by Respondent's above-mentioned actions which seek commercial gain based on confusion with Complainant's CHAI mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding, though it did submit an email to Forum, on April 14, 2025, stating:

-       Proactive compliance measures have been taken: After receiving the complaint, we have immediately deleted all website content related to the domain name and stopped all use behaviors that may involve disputes.

-       No malicious intent: We did not have the subjective intention to infringe the rights of the complainant when registering and using the domain name, and we have actively cooperated to resolve the dispute.

-       Request to withdraw the lawsuit: In view of the fact that the dispute has been eliminated through our proactive rectification, we kindly request the complainant Chai Research Corp. to withdraw this complaint to avoid unnecessary waste of administrative procedural resources.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns trademark rights in the CHAI mark and the <chaibot.net> domain name is confusingly similar to such mark;

-       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is used to pass itself off as Complainant and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as 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

Complainant asserts rights in the CHAI trademark through its registration with various national and multi-national trademark offices. Registration of a mark in this manner is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides information from the World Intellectual Property Organization and the Australia trademark office. Based on this information, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the CHAI trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).¹ Complainant further asserts that it owns common law trademark rights in its mark dating back to 2021. The Panel has reviewed screenshots of Complainant's various social media pages as well as its website at www.chai-research.com dating as far back as March 1, 2023 showing use and promotion of the mark but evidence relating to any earlier use has not been supplied. As such, the Panel finds that Complainant possesses common law rights in its CHAI mark as of March 1, 2023 but it is unable to determine if right existed prior to this date.

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <chaibot.net> domain name is confusingly similar to the CHAI mark because it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds the word "bot" and the ".net" TLD. Where the dominant portion of a mark is incorporated into a domain name, the addition of generic or descriptive words typically does not negate any confusing similarity with an asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD '.com.' These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."). As the CHAI mark is clearly discernable in the <chaibot.net> domain name, and only the generic word "bot" and the ".net" TLD are added to the mark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <chaibot.net> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the CHAI mark or register domain names using the mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that 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 bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed 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 record for the <chaibot.net> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identifies Respondent as "liu fang". There is no evidence that Respondent is known otherwise. Furthermore, Complainant specifically notes that "Respondent is not licensed by Complainant to use Complainant's CHAI mark. Respondent is not an authorized vendor, supplier, or distributor of Complainant's goods and services" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <chaibot.net> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or that it makes a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof. Instead, the disputed domain name automatically redirects to another website at https://chat.chatgoat.ai that promotes a chatbot service which appears to have no relationship with Complainant or its business. Previous Panels have held that such use does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Materia, Inc. v. Michele Dinoia, FA 1627209 (Forum Aug. 20, 2015) ("The Panel finds that Respondent is using a confusingly similar domain name to redirect users to a webpage with unrelated hyperlinks, that Respondent has no other rights to the domain name, and finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving website for the disputed domain name, which has minimal content but displays the term "ChatGOAT" followed by the text "What will you find today?" and a dialog field into which users may type questions. The site also displays links titled "+New Chat", "Chat Interface", "AI Assistant", and "APP Download – Upgrade to Pro Version". Complainant further submits a signed Declaration from its counsel stating that, after the disputed domain name redirected to the above-mentioned website, "I used the 'back arrow' button in the browser and was able to return to the landing page for the <chaibot.net> domain…" A further screenshot of the <chaibot.net> page, which was reached after using the back arrow, is also provided. This displays Complainant's CHAI graphic logo and the title "Platform For Chat AI" followed by the text "+100 Million Chats This Month" and a link titled "Download The App". The fact that Respondent's resulting web pages appear to offer services that compete with Complainant is, itself, concerning but the fact that the <chaibot.net> page copies Complainant's graphic logo resolves any doubt in this Panel's mind as to Respondent's intent. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case which has gone unrebutted by Respondent and, upon a preponderance of the available evidence, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <chaibot.net> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CHAI mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of another's famous trademark can form a solid foundation upon which to build a case for bad faith registration of a disputed domain name and this can be demonstrated based on the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See Infosys Limited v. Anil Zaparde, Infosys Consulting, Inc., D2025-0445 (WIPO March 19, 2025) (Respondent operating in the same industry "increases the likelihood that the Respondent had been aware of the Complainant when the disputed domain name was registered."); see also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner."). Here, Complainant asserts that "Respondent had registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Chai's rights" and both the redirection of the disputed domain name to another site offering AI chat services as well as the copying of Complainant's graphic CHAI logo at the <chaibot.net> site itself leads the Panel to conclude that this is a reasonable assertion. Further, despite its acknowledgment of the present proceedings and email to Forum, Respondent has not denied Complainant's assertion of prior knowledge. Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <chaibot.net> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for its services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website."). The Complaint asserts that Respondent is impersonating Complainant or at least passing off the <chaibot.net> website as originating or being associated with Complainant and the Panel references the screenshots of the websites that resolve from the domain name which are mentioned in the previous section. These show Respondent's use of the CHAI mark as well as Complainant's graphic logo in relation to identical services. In its email to Forum, Respondent states that it has deleted its website content and asserts that it "did not have the subjective intention to infringe the rights of the complainant when registering and using the domain name, and we have actively cooperated to resolve the dispute." It is well accepted that altering a website only after being put on notice of a dispute does not cure bad faith under the Policy. See, e.g., LEGO Juris A/S v. Cuong Nguyen Viet, D2018-0097 (WIPO Mar. 2, 2018) (Finding of bad faith supported by Respondent's modification of its website content subsequent to receiving Complainant's initial cease-and-desist letter); WordPress Foundation v. Alexander Mooney, FA 1583527 (Forum, Nov. 24, 2014) ("post-dispute alterations evidence bad faith"). Further, Respondent's claim of having no "subjective intention to infringe" Complainant's trademark rights is unsupported by any further detail or evidence and so it must be significantly discounted. Based on a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to seek commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 

 

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 <chaibot.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist

Dated: April 30, 2025