DECISION

 

Hyperconnect LLC v. Roman Roman

Claim Number: FA2506002163492

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Hyperconnect LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Stephanie Schmidt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Roman Roman ("Respondent"), Cyprus.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <azar.chat>, 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.

 

Luca Barbero as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 30, 2025; Forum received payment on June 30, 2025.

 

On June 30, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <azar.chat> 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 July 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 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@azar.chat. Also on July 2, 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 July 21, 2025.

 

On July 22, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Luca Barbero 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 <azar.chat> domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

Complainant states that it is the owner of the AZAR mark, that it began using at least as early as 2014, when it first launched its AZAR real-time video and voice chat application. 

Complainant states that, in addition to extensive common law rights developed through longstanding use of its AZAR mark, it owns trademark registrations for or including AZAR in the United States and other countries.

 

Complainant contends that the <azar.chat> domain name is confusingly similar to its AZAR mark as it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".chat", which is insufficient to distinguish the <azar.chat> domain name from the AZAR mark, and, given the services provided by Complainant under the AZAR mark, only serves to increase the likelihood of confusion.

 

Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <azar.chat> domain name since: i) Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant and Respondent never requested or received any authorization, permission or license from Complainant to use the AZAR mark or the <azar.chat> domain name.

 

Complainant also submits that Respondent has never been commonly known by the <azar.chat> domain name or by the AZAR mark and has not acquired any trademark rights in the same.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the <azar.chat> domain name and is instead using it in bad faith to mislead consumers for commercial gain since Respondent's website at the <azar.chat> domain name has been offering video chat and matching services and was originally displaying the AZAR mark, impersonating Complainant and referring to itself as "Azar," also mimicking Complainant's own website.

 

Complainant states that, only after Complainant sent – via an agent - a take down request to the hosting provider of the website at the <azar.chat> domain name, the website was modified, and Respondent began using the confusingly similar "Azaria" designation on the website. Complainant further points out that the Terms and Conditions published on Respondent's website indicate that it may apply advertising or promotional messages within its services, showing that Respondent's use of the <azar.chat> domain name is commercial and in bad faith.

 

Complainant thus concludes that Respondent is at best creating the false impression that Complainant operates or approves its website, and at worst is actively impersonating Complainant to intentionally deceive consumers. 

 

Complainant submits that Respondent registered the <azar.chat> domain name in bad faith because of the obvious link between Complainant and the content of the website where the <azar.chat> domain name redirects, the well-known character of Complainant's trademark and the incorporation of the AZAR mark in the <azar.chat> domain name.

 

As to use in bad faith, Complainant claims that Respondent is using the <azar.chat> domain name to intentionally attract internet users to Respondent's website and to mislead those users as to its affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement by Complainant, all for Respondent's own commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent denies Complainant's allegations and claims that that the project hosted at the <azar.chat> domain name is a non-commercial social experiment created solely to provide people around the world with free and unrestricted random video chat communication.

 

Respondent points out that, on its website, i) there is no form of registration or user authentication, ii) no advertising is displayed and there is no monetization, fees, subscriptions, or donations, and iii) no personal data is collected, including emails, banking details, phone numbers, etc.

 

Respondent claims that it has never derived and does not derive any commercial profit and its project does not involve financial or marketing activity.

 

Respondent submits that it registered the <azar.chat> domain name because of the meaning of "azar" in Spanish, Portuguese and other languages, which would be "random", "chance" or "luck" and reflects the essence of Respondent's service, consisting in providing random video connections between strangers.

 

Respondent also states that it was not aware of the existence of Complainant's AZAR mark at the time of registration and registered the <azar.chat> domain name lawfully and in good faith, without any intent to imitate any brand, and solely based on the generic meaning of the word.

 

Respondent denies the similarity between its website and the one of Complainant and points out that, upon receipt of the complaint to the hosting provider sent by a Complainant's agent, removed all reference to the AZAR mark and renamed its project "Azaria", also changing its logo and any visual or textual elements that could potentially cause confusion. Respondent states that it sent communications to Complainant's agent indicating that all potential infringements had been addressed and asked for confirmation that it was in compliance with their requirements but received no response.

 

Respondent concludes that it remains open to discussing any further changes should the Complainant express specific suggestions or requirements to improve differentiation between the respective projects.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant provides video and artificial intelligence-powered social discovery products, including its flagship product, AZAR, which is a real-time video and voice chat app launched in 2014.

 

As of Q3 2024, the AZAR app had 9.5 million monthly active users globally and 600,000 paying users. Google Play named AZAR the "App of the Year" in 2015 and 2016. In 2020, Complainant was ranked in the top 10 by revenue in Apple's App Store social network apps in 60 countries, and ranked fourth by revenue among non-gaming apps on Google Play in Europe.

 

In June 2021, Complainant was acquired by Match Group for $1.725 billion.

 

Complainant owns, amongst others, the following trademark registrations in the United States (Exhibit F to the Complaint):

 

-       United States trademark registration No. 4,824,823 for AZAR (word mark), filed on March 12, 2014, and registered on October 6, 2015, in international classes 9 and 38;

 

-       United States trademark registration No. 7,033,106 for AZAR (word mark), filed on October 6, 2021, and registered on April 25, 2023, in international class 45.

 

Complainant is also the owner of trademark registrations for AZAR in many other jurisdictions, including the following International trademark registrations designating, amongst others, European Union (Exhibit G and H to the Complaint):

 

-       International trademark registration No. 1264543 for AZAR (word mark), registered on June 22, 2015, in class 9;

-       International trademark registration No. 1629119 for AZAR (word mark), registered on October 6, 2021, in class 45.

 

Complainant owns the domain name <azarlive.com>, registered on September 9, 2013, and used by Complainant in connection with its online video chat platform.

 

The <azar.chat> domain name was registered on June 14, 2023, and has been pointed to a website providing video chat services. The website originally displayed the AZAR mark (Exhibit H to the Complaint), which has been replaced with "Azaria" after Complainant sent a take down request to the hosting provider (Exhibits M and N to the Complaint).

 

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 has established rights in the AZAR mark based on the trademark registrations in the United States and other countries cited above. See GK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015), holding that a complainant's registration with the USPTO or any other governmental authority adequately proves complainant's rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The <azar.chat> domain name incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety with the mere addition of gTLD ".chat". The addition of a gTLD to a mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark incorporated therein. 

 

In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven that the <azar.chat> domain name is identical to the trademark in which Complainant has established rights according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <azar.chat> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden 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 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.").

 

In the case at hand, Complainant has made a prima facie case and Respondent has failed to raise convincing circumstances that could demonstrate, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), rights or legitimate interests in the <azar.chat> domain name.

 

Complainant submitted, and Respondent has not denied, that Respondent is not an affiliate or authorized agent of Complainant and has not been licensed, permitted, or authorized by Complainant to use the AZAR mark or to register the <azar.chat> domain name.

 

Moreover, there is no indication before the Panel that Respondent, whose name is "Roman Roman" according to the WHOIS information provided by the Registrar, is commonly known by the <azar.chat> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent has redirected the <azar.chat> domain name, identical to Complainant's AZAR mark, to a website providing video chat services identical to the ones offered by Complainant via its application and the website "www.azarlive.com" since 2014. According to the records, Respondent's website originally displayed explicit reference to the AZAR mark and described its service as "Azar Video Chat". The website also used, and is still using, a black background which recalls the one of Complainant's website at "www.azarlive.com".

 

In view of the above, the Panel finds that Respondent was likely aware of Complainant's mark at the time of registration and has used the <azar.chat> domain name to take advantage of Complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to its competing website and creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark and service.

 

The slight changes made by Respondent to its website upon receipt of Complainant's take down request sent via the hosting provider, particularly the replacement of AZAR with "Azaria" to identify Respondent's service, are not sufficient to prevent the likelihood of confusion.

 

Moreover, despite the service was described as "free random video chat", a clause (number 8) in the Terms and Conditions of the website provides that "The Company may apply advertising or promotional messages within the Service or in any communication means when contacting Users, in the way and under conditions determined solely by the Company". The presence of such a clause suggests that Respondent may have included, or intend to include, sponsored advertisements in its service, which would generate revenues for Respondent.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the <azar.chat> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant's mark. 

 

See Glaxo Group Ltd. v. WWW Zban, FA 203164 (Forum Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that the respondent was not using the domain name within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) because the respondent used the domain name to take advantage of the complainant's mark by diverting Internet users to a competing commercial site); see also Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain's resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <azar.chat> domain name according to Policy 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that, in light of the prior use of the AZAR mark in connection with Complainant's video chat application since 2014, the popularity of the app and the prior registration of the AZAR mark in the United States and several other countries, Respondent was or should have been aware of Complainant's mark at the time of registration of the <azar.chat> domain name, which occurred only in June 2023.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's registration of the <azar.chat> domain name, identical to Complainant's mark and in the ".chat" gTLD referrable to Complainant's service, and its use of the same to provide a video chat service identical to the one of Complainant on a website which imitates the look and feel of Complainant's official website, cannot amount to a mere coincidence. The contents of Respondent's website indeed suggest that Respondent was aware of, and intended to target, Complainant's trademark.

 

In view of the use of the <azar.chat> domain name described above, promoting a service in direct competition with the one offered by Complainant under the AZAR mark, without providing any disclaimer of non-affiliation with Complainant, the Panel finds that, on balance of probabilities, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and the service promoted therein according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent registered and is using the <azar.chat> domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <azar.chat> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Luca Barbero, Panelist

Dated: August 5, 2025