DECISION

 

ROBBINS RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Matthew Davis

Claim Number: FA2506002161349

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ROBBINS RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("Complainant"), represented by Evan N. Spiegel of Lavely & Singer Professional Corporation, California, USA. Respondent is Matthew Davis ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tonyrobbinsai.com>, 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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 17, 2025; Forum received payment on June 17, 2025.

 

On June 24, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tonyrobbinsai.com> 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 June 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 15, 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@tonyrobbinsai.com. Also on June 25, 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.

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 16, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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

Anthony Robbins, also professionally known as (p/k/a) Tony Robbins ("Robbins") is a world-renowned and internationally known, recognized and respected author, peak performance coach and motivational speaker. Complainant, by license from its founder and CEO Anthony Robbins, holds (directly and through its related entity TR Legacy, LLC) all and exclusive rights in and to both (i) the marks "TONY ROBBINS" and "ANTHONY ROBBINS" which are registered at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "Mark(s)") (e.g., Reg. No. 4154395 dated June 5, 2012; and Reg. No. 2305962 dated January 4, 2000). Complainant also uses the domain name <tonyrobbins.com> as its primary website address.

 

The <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name, registered on August 17, 2017, is confusingly similar to the Marks as it incorporates the TONY ROBBINS Mark in its entirety adding only the letters "ai" and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known thereby and it resolves the domain name to a pay-per-click page with links referring both to Complainant and its competitors.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the famous Marks and based on its resolution to a monetized website displaying links which refer to both Complainant and its competitors.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However, Forum received an e-mail from Respondent on June 29, 2025 stating:

 

Dear Mr. Spiegel,

I acknowledge receipt of the UDRP complaint regarding TonyRobbinsAI.com. I respect Robbins Research International, Inc.'s concerns regarding its valuable intellectual property.

 

I want to clarify that I have never commercially exploited the domain for profit, nor have I personally received revenue from any automated advertising links that may have been displayed through the registrar's default parking system. My original concept was to explore a legitimate AI project inspired by leadership coaching concepts, not to infringe on Mr. Robbins' brand.

 

That said, I fully respect Mr. Robbins' name and wish to resolve this matter amicably. I am willing to voluntarily transfer the domain to Robbins Research International, Inc. to avoid further dispute.

 

Given that I have maintained the domain for several years at my own expense, including renewals, hosting, and seeking initial legal advice to understand my rights, I would respectfully request reimbursement of $2,000 CAD to cover those documented costs.

 

In addition, as a recognized AI expert with significant experience in designing artificial intelligence solutions for large enterprises, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss how I might help Robbins Research International, Inc. build or advise on any future Tony Robbins–branded AI initiatives. I believe my skills could add real value to your client's brand and goals in this area. You can view my professional profile here: [REDACTED]

 

Please let me know if this proposal is acceptable. I will cooperate immediately with the domain transfer upon agreement, and I remain open to a further discussion on collaborating around an AI solution that could positively extend Mr. Robbins' brand into new technologies.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Sincerely,

 

Matthew Davis

[PHONE AND EMAIL REDACTED]

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns trademark rights to the TONY ROBBINS and ANTHONY ROBBINS marks and the <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the marks;

-       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known thereby and the domain name redirects to a website that hosts monetized links to services that compete with Complainant; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith based on the above-mentioned activity

 

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 TONY ROBBINS and ANTHONY ROBBINS trademarks through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates as well as printouts from the USPTO website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its asserted Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, it is argued that Respondent's <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding or omitting letters to a trademark, along with adding a TLD, is typically insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See Ancestry.com Operations Inc. v. Nadeem Qadir a/k/a NA Seocho c/o NA a/k/a Bladimir Boyiko a/k/a Free Domains Parking c/o Andrey Vasiliev, FA 1327838 (Forum July 13, 2010) (finding the respondent's <familytreemakers.com> domain name confusingly similar to the complainant's FAMILY TREE MAKER trademark because the addition of the letter "s" was insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark). See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") The <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name adds the letters "ai" (presumably as an acronym for "artificial intelligence") at the end of the TONY ROBBINS Mark, and "Tony" is a common abbreviation of the name "Anthony" thus implicating Complainant's ANTHONY ROBBINS Mark. The disputed domain name also adds the ".com" TLD which may be disregarded here as it conveys no distinctiveness to the domain name. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and so the Panel finds that Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Marks 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 names 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 asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In considering this issue WHOIS information can be used to support a finding that a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sep. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed "Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't" as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a mark can be further evidence that a respondent is not commonly known by the mark. See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) ("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.") Here, the WHOIS information revealed by the concerned Registrar identifies "Matthew Davis" as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Additionally, Complainant states that "Respondent has no relationship with Complainant and/or its CEO Anthony 'Tony' Robbins, and Complainant has not given permission or authorized Respondent to register and use the disputed Domain Name." Respondent does not contest this. Thus, the Panel finds no evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, it asserts that the <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website with links that refer to both Complainant and to competing services. Where a domain is used to display a pay-per-click page with links to third-party products or services that are competitive to a complainant, Panels often find that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). 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).") Also 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). Complainant provides a screenshot of the website to which the <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name resolves and this displays pay-per-click links titled "Icf Certified Life Coach Training Online", "Tony Robbins Books", and "Life Coach Certification", which are related to and competitive with a number of Complainant's own services in the fields of peak performance coaching and motivational speaking.

 

For its part, Respondent asserts that its "original concept was to explore a legitimate AI project inspired by leadership coaching concepts…" although it provides no evidence to support this claim which sounds in the assertion of a demonstrable preparation to use the disputed domain name. Even if it had produced such evidence, its use of Complainant's Marks for its stated purpose, without Complainant's permission, would not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services and its request for an "opportunity to discuss how I might help Robbins Research International, Inc. build or advise on any future Tony Robbins–branded AI initiatives" is an acknowledgement of this reality. Finally, the Panel notes that Respondent has owned the disputed domain name for nearly eight years and its lack of development further suggests that it either had no intention of, or was unable to advance its claimed "original concept" in that time.

 

As the Complainant has set out a prima facie claim which has not been adequately rebutted by the Respondent, the Panel finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the TONY ROBBINS and ANTHONY ROBBINS Marks at the time of registering the <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name. A respondent's actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in an asserted mark prior to registering a disputed domain name can form a foundation upon which to base an argument for bad faith. See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.") Also see AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field.") Complainant asserts that its Marks are recognized world-wide by consumers based on Robbins being an "advisor to leaders around the world * * * including Nelson Mandela, Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, Francois Mitterrand, Princess Diana, and Mother Teresa. He has consulted members of two royal families, members of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Army, the U.S. Marines and three U.S. Presidents, including Bill Clinton." It further states that Robbins is "an award-winning speaker who has addressed such distinguished audiences as the British Parliament, Harvard Business School, the Gorbachev Foundation's Cold War Forum, the Presidents' Summit for America's Future, the State of the World Forum, Vice President Al Gore's Putting Customers First Conference, and the World Economic Forum." Robbins is also "an internationally bestselling author, with eight best-selling books published in 14 languages…" In support, Complainant submits screenshots from the official <tonyrobbins.com> website; an image of the IMDB.com profile page for Anthony "Tony" Robbins showing over 50 credits as Tony Robbins; the results of an Amazon.com search showing many books authored by Robbins; and screenshots of Google search results with over Forty-Million hits for Anthony Robbins and Tony Robbins. The Panel finds that this evidence, combined with Respondent's statement that its "original concept was to explore a legitimate AI project inspired by leadership coaching concepts", adequately supports the position that Complainant's trademarks are widely famous and that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the Marks at the time that it registered the disputed domain name.

 

Next, bad faith use is asserted based on the resolution of the <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name to a pay-per-click website with links to other websites offering services that compete with those provided by Complainant. Use of a disputed domain name to redirect consumers to third-party goods or services has been upheld as evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See block.one v. Negalize Interactive Things, FA 1798280 (Forum Aug. 21, 2018) ("Offering links to competing products or services can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) where a respondent registers a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another.") Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving pay-per-click page with links titled "Icf Certified Life Coach Training Online", "Tony Robbins Books", and "Life Coach Certification", all of which are directly related to, and in some instances competitive with Complainant's business of providing services in the fields of peak performance coaching and motivational speaking. The Panel finds that this evidences passing off activity and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Finally, the Panel notes that Respondent's email to Forum states that "[g]iven that I have maintained the domain for several years at my own expense, including renewals, hosting, and seeking initial legal advice to understand my rights, I would respectfully request reimbursement of $2,000 CAD to cover those documented costs." Respondent has not provided any documentation of its claimed costs and, in any event, Complainant has not asserted bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). As bad faith has been found on other grounds, the Panel will not further address the issue under this section of the Policy.

 

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 <tonyrobbinsai.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: July 21, 2025