DECISION

 

Google LLC v. jiaming tang

Claim Number: FA2507002165873

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is jiaming tang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <veo-2.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 15, 2025; Forum received payment on July 15, 2025.

 

On July 17, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <veo-2.com> domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, 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 July 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 7, 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@veo-2.com. Also on July 18, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 8, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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

Complainant, Google LLC, provides one of the most highly recognized and widely used Internet search services in the world. On April 14, 2024 Complainant commenced offering an artificial intelligence powered video generation service under the VEO mark. On December 16, 2024, the same day the Domain Name was registered, Complainant announced and launched the Veo 2 iteration of the offering. Complainant has rights in the VEO mark through its applications and registration of the mark with numerous national trademark authorities including the Austrian Patent Office (e.g., Reg. No. 328,856 registered November 13, 2024). Respondent's <veo-2.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it wholly incorporates the VEO mark and adds the geographic element "-2" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <veo-2.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the VEO mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent initially attempting to profit from confusing users into believing that the resolving site ("Respondent's Website") belongs to Complainant by reproducing Complainant's VEO mark, Complainant's name, information about the product and a copyright disclaimer copied from Complainant's official websites. Following receipt of a letter of demand the Domain Name has resolved to a template site in Chinese and a website providing information about AI tools and referring to Complainant.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <veo-2.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant's business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent also had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VEO mark at the time of registration evidenced by the use of the Complainant's name, marks and copyrighted material on the Respondent's Website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the VEO mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VEO mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

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 has rights in the VEO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the Austrian Patent Office (e.g., Reg. No. 328,856 registered November 13, 2024). Registration with the Austrian Patent Office can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that the <veo-2.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VEO mark as it consists of the VEO mark with the addition the generic numeral (and hyphen) "-2" and the ".com" gTLD. Adding a generic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where "[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain."); see also 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.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the VEO mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists "jiaming tang" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name resolved to the Respondent's Website which, through the reproduction of the Complainant's name, VEO mark, and copyrighted material, passed itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of purporting to offer for sale services relating to Complainant's AI services in direct competition with Complainant. Furthermore, the current use of the Domain Name for a website promoting AI tools by reference to Complainant also passes off as Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that passes off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum February 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

For completeness the Panel also notes that the intermediate use of the Domain Name, for a template website (not being a website in active use) that made no reference to the Domain Name, also does not provide a basis to find rights and legitimate interests; rather it appears that this website was simply chosen to provide a "purported" legitimate use in response to the Complainant's letter of demand.

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (December 16, 2024), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's VEO mark since the Respondent's Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant or entity connected to Complainant and the Domain Name was registered the exact day the Complainant announced its VEO 2 product to considerable fanfare.  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's VEO mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to websites that purport to pass themselves off as Complainant (or connected to Complainant) for the purpose of offering AI services or related services.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <veo-2.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: August 11, 2025