DECISION
Voices.com Inc. v. Igor Gabrielan / PRAI
Claim Number: FA2505002157805
PARTIES
Complainant is Voices.com Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Robert M. O'Connell, Jr. of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Igor Gabrielan / PRAI ("Respondent"), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <voices.ai>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
David P. Miranda and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 28, 2025. Forum received payment on May 28, 2025.
On May 29, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <voices.ai> 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 June 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 27, 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@voices.ai. Also on June 3, 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 June 27, 2025.
On July 3, 2025, Complainant submitted an unsolicited Additional Submission pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7.
On July 8, 2025, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed David P. Miranda and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
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, Voices.com Inc., is the leading online voice marketplace in the world, enabling businesses to find, hire, and pay professional voice talent without needing a traditional talent agent. Complainant has been serving individuals and businesses across the United States for decades since its founding in 2005. In the past twenty years, Complainant has experienced significant growth, reaching approximately 4 million members, posting 500,000 jobs, serving 160 countries, and offering its services in over 100 languages and dialects.
Complainant has spent significant time, money, and effort in developing products and services incorporating artificial intelligence ("AI") including training datasets for AI voice launched in 2019; AI voice licensing and sourcing services launched in 2021; and an AI-integrated text-to-speech platform launched in 2023.
Since at least 2006, Complainant has been continuously using the marks VOICES and VOICES.COM (collectively, the "VOICES Marks") in U.S. commerce to identify itself and its products and services. For almost two decades, Complainant has used the domain name <voices.com> for its customer-facing website, through which it advertises, promotes, and renders its services under the VOICES Marks.
In addition to its longstanding common law rights in the VOICES Marks, Complainant owns an incontestable United States trademark registration for VOICES.COM, U.S. Registration No. 4,930,467, issued on April 5, 2016. Complainant has thus established valid common law and statutory rights in its distinctive VOICES Marks.
The <voices.ai> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to both the VOICES.COM mark and the VOICES mark and incorporates Complainant's VOICES mark in its entirety.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent is not using, and has not used, the <voices.ai> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent opportunistically registered the domain name solely with the intention of selling it at an exorbitant price. Respondent is not known by the name VOICES.AI and is not authorized to use the VOICES Marks. And Respondent is not making and has not made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.
Respondent registered and is using the <voices.ai> domain name in bad faith. Respondent was on notice of Complainant's prior rights in the VOICES Marks when he registered the domain name and did so primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or another third party for an asking price of one million dollars – a sum grossly in excess of his actual costs.
Complainant had owned the disputed domain name since 2023 and unintentionally lost ownership of it at the end of 2024. The website at the domain name shows that Respondent is in the business of buying and selling domain names, which are being offered at incredibly high prices (e.g., $10,000 for <traveller.ai> and $50,000 <travelassistant.ai>). The <voices.ai> domain name is currently estimated, by GoDaddy Domain Appraisals, at a value of $1,005 and several similar domains are currently selling for $15.
Respondent has previously been found to have registered an .ai domain in bad faith. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Igor Gabrielan, FA2311002072420, in which Forum ordered Respondent to transfer the domain name <bloomberg.ai>.
Finally, Respondent took steps to hide his identity once he became aware of Complainant's interest in the domain name. The late redaction of his WHOIS contact information – after Complainant's initial offer to purchase the domain name – also weighs in favor of a bad faith finding.
B. Respondent
Complainant's U.S. registration is under Section 2(f), obtained on the basis of acquired distinctiveness. The 2(f) claim is not to the "voices" portion of the mark, but to the VOICES.COM mark "in whole". Hence Complainant's registered trademark rights in the claimed VOICES.COM mark do not date from 2006, and do not extend to the word "voices" standing alone. It is by no means established that Complainant has any trade or service mark rights in the word VOICES apart from its registered VOICES.COM mark as whole. Accordingly, one cannot simply ignore the fact that Complainant's claim of acquired distinctiveness, and the 2(f) in whole registration which Complainant obtained after years of use of VOICES.COM as a mark, was not in the term VOICES apart from VOICES.COM as a whole.
Even if Complainant's rights were not limited to a 2(f) registration in VOICES.COM for an online voiceover professional marketplace, it is unsurprising to find the words "voice" or "voices" appear in 428 pending or registered trademark records in the United States alone.
Furthermore, the Respondent, an individual citizen of Ukraine, has no duty of notice in relation to U.S. trademark registrations, and even so would not believe that a U.S. registration for "VOICES.COM" for specific services would confer a monopoly in the word "voices" in any other TLD.
Complainant does not mention that the only reason it obtained the <voices.com> domain name was because a domain investor had acquired it first, and Complainant negotiated the purchase of <voices.com> from that domain investor. Complainant suggests its limited rights in VOICES.COM for an online voice talent marketplace somehow extended to the Complainant's prior use of the domain name <voices.ai>. Complainant indeed has used VOICES.COM for a long time as an online voice artist advertising marketplace and obtained the 2(f) registration for VOICES.COM for providing such a marketplace. That has nothing to do with Complainant's recent registration and use of <voices.ai> since around 2023 for an AI voice synthesis and development platform.
Respondent agrees that Complainant has rights in VOICES.COM obtained on the basis of acquired distinctiveness in services relating to an advertising marketplace for voice artists. Respondent does not agree that Complainant's limited rights in VOICES.COM as a whole render it permissible to remove one third of the textual content of what was claimed in its entirety to be the mark in which the Complainant had acquired distinctiveness, in order to assert a broad right in VOICES as applied to the domain name <voices.ai>. The sole extent of the asserted similarity between the VOICES.COM mark and the domain name is the entirely generic component "voices" in which Complainant has never asserted or obtained recognition of any trade or service mark rights. Complainant did not establish distinctiveness in VOICES in the USPTO, which is obviously the subject of widespread use, including in relation to voice synthesis services in which Complainant had formerly used the <voices.ai> domain name, and this is not an appropriate forum in which to second guess the USPTO's limited recognition of acquired distinctiveness in VOICES.COM in its entirety.
Accordingly, Complainant has not satisfied the first element.
As to legitimacy, Complainant admits that the domain name was released because Complainant did not renew it. One thing is certain, the Respondent did not cause Complainant to discontinue its registration of the domain name.
If Complainant's general contention is that trade in dictionary word domain names is categorically illegitimate, it is hypocritical for Complainant not to have mentioned that its entire business is founded on a domain name purchase from another well-known domain investor for a $30,000 market price at that time.
As the Panel is likely aware, when domain names such as this one are not renewed, they generally proceed to auction, which is how Respondent acquired it. Hence, Complainant's sole allegation concerning Respondent is that Respondent has acquired a dictionary word domain name and is offering it for sale.
Here, as in OEE Ltd, Because Music SAS v. Matthew Klein, WIPO Case No. D2024-0709, it is readily apparent that the words "voice" or "voices" appear in literally hundreds of US trademark registrations, including many others consisting solely of the word "voices". Respondent's acquisition of the domain name was obviously consistent with Respondent's business as a domain investor, and indeed Respondent has an impressive portfolio of dictionary word .ai domain names relating to body parts or functions, or voice and sound, including: <arms.ai>, <conferencing.ai>, <conversational.ai>, <dialogs.ai>, <ears.ai>, <echoes.ai>, <emotions.ai>, <genomes.ai>, <instructor.ai>, <linguist.ai>, <livechat.ai>, <messages.ai>, <messengers.ai>, <musician.ai>, <presenter.ai>, <speakers.ai>, <tonal.ai>, <translating.ai> and <webchat.ai>.
Respondent had been collecting "voice"-formative names prior to <voices.ai> coming up for auction and registered the following names on the dates indicated: <voiceassistant.ai> 4/26/18, <voicechat.ai> 1/28/21, <voicechats.ai> 3/23/25 and <voicetech.ai> 11/13/18, all of which forward to Respondent's <PR.ai> website. Complainant's argument is essentially that Respondent began collecting "voice" domains in .ai in 2018 - before Complainant had even started using "voices.ai" – as some kind of a smokescreen for Respondent's knowledge that someday Complainant would register and then fail to renew <voices.ai>. That is a remarkable thing for Respondent to have predicted in advance.
Alternatively, Respondent submits that there is a more obvious conclusion to be drawn from these facts. It is readily apparent that the domain name <voices.ai> is a valuable dictionary word domain name susceptible to a wide range of uses, and that when it came up for auction, Respondent recognized it as such a dictionary word consistent with Respondent's existing portfolio of .ai names, including a number of "voice" formative domain names which Respondent had been accumulating for years in the .ai TLD. These are the obvious and apparent facts.
C. Complainant's Additional Submission
Complainant says Respondent cannot dispute that Complainant's ownership of its incontestable registration for the VOICES.COM mark on the Principal Register constitutes prima facie evidence of the mark's validity and constructive notice of Complainant's rights. Furthermore, despite Respondent's unfounded contention that Complainant started using its VOICES mark "at some unspecified time," Respondent [sic] has, in fact, been exclusively and continuously using the mark in U.S. commerce since 2006 as a leading source indicator in connection with its voice technology solutions, inclusive of AI products and services. Complainant's prior rights in its VOICES.COM and VOICES marks (collectively, the "VOICES Marks") have been clearly established.
The first prong does not consider uses of the mark(s) at issue in the marketplace and other atmospheric facets – it solely focuses on whether or not the disputed domain and trademark at issue are similar. Considered properly under Policy standards, the domain name <voices.ai> is undoubtedly confusingly similar to the trademarks at issue as it incorporates the entirety of Complainant's VOICES mark and is, apart from a generic top-level domain, identical to Complainant's VOICES.COM mark.
As to legitimacy, Respondent cannot deny that Complainant holds an incontestable prior federal registration for a mark which incorporates the same dominant element ("VOICES") as the domain name; Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a non-commercial or fair use, but rather is intentionally holding the domain name for resale to Complainant for an exorbitant amount of money; Respondent opportunistically registered the domain name after Complainant's prior rights in it inadvertently lapsed; Respondent has never been known as or referred to as "VOICES" or any variation thereof; and Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use the VOICES Marks.
Instead of squarely addressing the relevant circumstances set forth in the Complaint, establishing its own rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and/or refuting Complainant's evidence of Respondent's bad faith, Respondent continuously and improperly attempts to turn the narrative onto some nebulous flaw in Complainant's rights in, and use of, its VOICES Marks. Importantly, Respondent does not, at any point in the Response, address or justify that it is trying to ransom the domain name for one million (U.S.) dollars – perhaps the clearest indicator of his bad faith.
FINDINGS
Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it to relief.
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
Having considered all the evidence provided by Complainant, the Panel is not persuaded that the word VOICES, standing alone, has acquired such distinctiveness that it is exclusively attributable to Complainant in relation to any field of activity. "Voice" and its plural, "voices", are commonly used dictionary words which are also used in numerous third-party trademark registrations and numerous third-party domain names. A review of Complainant's <voices.com> website reveals that these words are used for their dictionary meaning thus undercutting the claim that the word "Voices" per se has acquired distinctiveness and thus common law trademark rights (e.g., "The #1 global source for high quality voice over actors, AI voices, and voice data", "Real, unique, and authentic human voices…", and "Ethically-sourced voices for AI cloning"). Accordingly, Complainant has not shown that it has common law trademark rights in the word VOICES.
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the USPTO registered service mark VOICES.COM, Reg. No. 4,930,467, registered on April 5, 2016, for "Operating on-line marketplaces for sellers and buyers of goods and/or services; Provision of advertising space by electronic means and global information networks (Based on 44(e)) Provision of advertising space by electronic means and global information networks, namely, providing an on-line advertising website featuring the audio and visual personal profiles of individuals offering services to others; Provision of advertising space by electronic means and global information networks", in International Class 035. Acquired distinctiveness under 2(f) was granted for the mark "In whole", meaning that the word "voices" alone was not considered distinctive.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.
In making the comparison between the <voices.ai> domain name and Complainant's registered VOICES.COM mark, the ".COM" portion of Complainant's mark cannot be ignored, because the "VOICES" portion is not distinctive. Although it is customary to ignore the usually inconsequential top-level domain in the domain name, here ".ai", in the present case, whether the comparison is made between the mark and the "voices" second level domain or between the mark and the entirety of the <voices.ai> domain name, the Panel finds Respondent's <voices.ai> domain name to be similar but not confusingly similar to Complainant's VOICES.COM mark as required by Paragraph 4(a)(i).
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Even assuming that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established the second and third elements, as discussed below.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <voices.ai> domain name was registered by Complainant on March 31, 2023 and inadvertently allowed to lapse for reasons that are not explained. Respondent acquired the domain name by auction and registered it on March 3, 2025. There is no evidence that Respondent, who is located in Ukraine, knew of Complainant at the time he acquired the domain name.
The evidence shows that Respondent actively engages in the registration and resale of domain names composed of generic terms – a practice that is recognized and accepted within the domain industry. See Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Domain Admin/This Domain is for Sale, Hugedomains.com, WIPO Case No. D2017-1961, in which the Panel stated:
"The Respondent is a domainer which regularly registers domain names that include generic words for the purposes of selling them. Such business activities can be legitimate and are not in themselves a breach of the Policy, so long as they do not encroach on third parties' trade mark rights."
There is no evidence that Respondent has used the <voices.ai> domain name to target or otherwise encroach on Complainant's rights in its VOICES.COM mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that, as a longstanding domain name investor, Respondent has a legitimate interest in the <voices.ai> domain name based on its acquisition at auction and Respondent's business model of selling domain names through his website. This sort of business of investing in generic domain names, without evidence of trademark targeting, has been recognized as legitimate in a number of prior decisions. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 496 (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2024) ("An offer to sell a disputed domain name to anyone is not a violation, except it is when the value the domain name claims to have is derivative of the mark.")
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;
(iii) Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
On March 19 and 20, 2025, a representative of Complainant approached Respondent seeking to "acquire the voices.ai domain back". Respondent replied: "I sold a domain fin.ai for $1M this year. voices.ai is $1M also."
Although $1M clearly exceeds Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, the Panel is not persuaded that Respondent, a domain name reseller based in Ukraine who is offering the domain name for sale to the public at large, knew of Complainant at the time he acquired the domain name, nor that he acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant. The Complaint states that Complainant serves users in "160 countries" but the submitted evidence is rather scant on this point. Complainant submits documents showing that it is the recipient of business awards from entities in the U.S. and Canada and the footer of its <voices.com> website displays links to various U.S. cities under the heading "By Location". There is no further evidence of Complainant's activities beyond North America and, in particular, in Respondent's country of Ukraine.
Even if, prior to the auction, Respondent had done some research and discovered that the domain name was formerly owned by Complainant, Respondent had no reason to believe that Complainant had not intentionally abandoned its .ai domain name rather than having inadvertently allowed it to lapse, which is quite rare in substantial and successful businesses.
Complainant notes that in Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Igor Gabrielan, FA 2072420, the domain name <bloomberg.ai> was ordered to be transferred from Respondent. This does not demonstrate bad faith on the part of Respondent in the present case because, unlike the dictionary word "voices", the word Bloomberg is highly distinctive of the complainant in that case.
In all the circumstances, there is no basis on which the Panel could find that Respondent has acted in bad faith.
Complainant has failed to establish this element.
DECISION
Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <voices.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Alan L. Limbury, Chair
David P. Miranda, Panelist
Steven M. Levy, Panelist
Dated: July 17, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page