DECISION

 

Mento Technologies Inc. v. Nima Rad

Claim Number: FA2504002149457

PARTIES

Complainant is Mento Technologies Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lindsay M.R. Jones of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Nima Rad ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mento.ai> (the "Domain Name"), 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.

 

Clive Elliott K.C. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 8, 2025; Forum received payment on April 8, 2025.

 

On April 8, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the 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 April 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 29, 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@mento.ai. Also on April 9, 2025, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 10, 2025.

 

On April 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Clive Elliott K.C., 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant is an American company with its premises in San Fransico, California. It is a well-known provider of professional development and coaching services together with related software products and services.

 

Complainant is the registered owner of the MENTO trade mark (Complainant's Mark) as registered with the USPTO, Registration Number 6,680,115 on March 22, 2022 in Classes 35, 41 and 42. Complainant first adopted Complainant's Mark in April 2020 and has since then used it continuously in connection with promoting its business.  It contends that Complainant's Mark and corresponding brand has developed substantial goodwill and customer recognition, all of which pre-dates registration of the Domain Name.

 

According to the publicly available WhoIs Respondent registered the Domain Name on March 23, 2023, which resolves to a website offering substantially the same professional development and coaching services and related software products and services that are offered by Complainant under Complainant's Mark.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights in the Domain Name, nor has Complainant granted Respondent a licence to use the Domain Name containing Complainant's Mark or any derivative thereof.  

 

Complainant points out that Complainant's Mark is a coined word or phrase and has no source-identifying meaning other than to designate Complainant and its brand of professional development and coaching services.

 

Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar, if not identical, to Complainant's Mark as it contains Complainant's Mark in its entirety as the distinctive element of the Domain Name. Consequently, Complainant submits, consumers are likely to be confused that the Domain Name is sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant, when it is not.

 

Complainant goes on to claim that consumer confusion is heightened further as the content of the Domain Name offers for sale the same and similar type of professional development and coaching services and software products as Complainant.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith for the purpose of diverting online traffic premised on consumer confusion and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent sought to clarify critical points in its response.

 

Respondent advises that it registered the Domain Name independently and without prior knowledge of Complainant's services or Mark.

 

Respondent asserts that its platform, <mento.ai>, operates as an AI-driven professional social network for connecting professionals and providing AI-generated guidance. Respondent goes on to state that it explicitly does not include any person-to-person mentorship modules, which distinctly differs from Complainant's person-to-person mentoring services.

 

Additionally, Respondent contends that upon receiving the initial notice from Complainant, Respondent initiated a rebranding process, which is expected to launch by July 2025, and points out that this demonstrates Respondent's genuine intent and co-operative approach.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set out below, the Panel is satisfied that Complainant should succeed and that the Domain Name should be transferred 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant claims rights in Complainant's Mark through the USPTO trademark registration, as set out above. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of Complainant's Mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated rights in Complainant's Mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar, if not identical, to Complainant's Mark as it contains Complainant's Mark in its entirety. It further argues that Complainant's Mark comprises the distinctive element of the Domain Name. When a disputed domain name wholly incorporates another's mark, additional terms have been found insufficient to defeat a finding of confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."). Given that Respondent only adds the ccTLD .ai, (the country code top-level domain for Anguilla and a term having a natural association with artificial intelligence), to Complainant's Mark, the Panel finds the Domain Name 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 Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights in the Domain Name, nor has Complainant granted Respondent a licence to use the Domain Name containing Complainant's Mark or any derivative thereof.  Respondent does not dispute this.

 

In addition, Complainant alleges that the content of the Domain Name offers for sale the same and similar type of professional development and coaching services and software products as Complainant and that this is likely to lead to consumer confusion. In response, Respondent contends that its platform operates as an AI-driven professional social network and that its services differ from Complainant's person-to-person mentoring services.

 

This response fails to address the essence of Complainant's argument, namely that the parties' services are either the same or similar in type. That argument seems to have merit and is not refuted by Respondent's bare assertion to the contrary.

 

The use of a confusingly similar domain name to deceive and divert customers away from a complainant does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Similarly, the use of the Domain Name to offer goods or services that are similar to and potentially compete with those of Complainant is not bona fide or legitimate. See Coryn Group, Inc. v. Media Insight, FA 198959 (Forum Dec. 5, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the respondent used the names to divert Internet users to a website that offered services that competed with those offered by the complainant under its marks).

 

On that basis, Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith for the purpose of diverting online traffic, premised on consumer confusion, and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the offer of services that compete or potentially compete with those offered by Complainant, in this way and as set out above, shows bad faith disruption of Complainant's business pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA 1762308 (Forum January 9, 2018) (Finding that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).

 

Given Complainant's prior use and registration of Complainant's Mark, the absence of any adequate explanation for registering and using the Domain Name in a similar commercial field, the Panel is satisfied that bad faith has been established.

 

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 <mento.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________

 

Clive Elliott K.C., Panelist

Dated: April 24, 2025