DECISION

 

Keeta, Inc. v. Laurentiu Marian Stroe

Claim Number: FA2507002167587

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Keeta, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Maulin V. Shah of Envision IP LLC, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is Laurentiu Marian Stroe ("Respondent"), Georgia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <keetaai.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 24, 2025; Forum received payment on July 24, 2025.

 

On July 25, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <keetaai.com> 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 July 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 14, 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@keetaai.com. Also on July 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 15, 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

Complainant is a fintech company focused on transforming cross-border payments through high-speed, low-cost blockchain technology. Headquartered in Santa Monica, California, Complainant now maintains the Keeta Token which is the native utility and governance token of the Keeta Network, a high-speed Layer-1 blockchain designed for compliant cross-chain and fiat transactions. The Keeta Token is used for transaction fees, staking, governance, and enabling on-chain compliance features such as KYC/AML. The KEETA trademark is the subject of numerous registrations around the world including Int. Reg. No. 1738182 dated June 7, 2023, and European Union Reg. No. 018899178 dated February 20, 2024. Complainant also owns the domain name <keeta.com> which is used for its corporate website, the primary marketing and sales channel used by Complainant.

 

The domain name <keetaai.com> is confusingly similar to the Keeta trademark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, with the only additions being the term "ai" appended at the end and the ".com" top-level domain.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it uses it to pass off its cryptocurrency wallet tracking application as originating with Complainant which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the KEETA mark and seeks to pass off its services as originating with Complainant by exploiting the mark's reputation and visually and linguistically imitating the trade dress of Complainant's own website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns trademark rights in the KEETA mark and the <keetai.com> domain name is confusingly similar to such mark;

-       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is used to pass itself off as Complainant and there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as 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.

 

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 KEETA trademark through its registration with various national and multi-national trademark offices. Registration of a mark in this manner is a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides printouts from the websites of various trademark offices such as the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"). Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the KEETA trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, it is argued that Respondent's <keetaai.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 <keetaai.com> domain name adds the letters "ai" at the end of the KEETA mark. Complainant asserts that this "is likely to increase consumer confusion, particularly because Complainant operates under the Keeta trademark in the technology space, where 'AI' is a commonly used industry term" and the Panel agrees. See Union des Associations Europeenes de Football (UEFA) v. Nemykin Dmitriy Aleksandrovich, UDRP-107283 (CAC March 3, 2025) ("The descriptive term 'tickets' does not eliminate confusing similarity. Moreover, given the Complainants' business activities, it actually increases confusion" as used in the domain name uefa-tickets.com). 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 name 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 argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <keetaai.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the KEETA mark or register domain names using the mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the <keetaai.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identifies Respondent as "Laurentiu Marian Stroe" and there is no evidence that Respondent is known otherwise. The fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use is intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another can not constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy."). Furthermore, Complainant specifically notes that it has not "licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its Keeta trademark in any manner" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <keetaai.com> domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or that it makes a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that claims to promote an online business that is complementary to the services offered by Complainant while passing itself off as originating with Complainant. Panels have held that passing off use and impersonation do not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See DPDgroup International Services GmbH & Co. KG v. Maihi ben, D2023-1896 (WIPO July 11, 2023) (no rights or legitimate interests found where "the Domain Name resolved to a website that imitates Complainant's corporate website and promotes complementary services to those offered by Complainant."). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving website for the disputed domain name, which displays, at the top, the headline "Keeta AI – The All-in-One AI Platform Suite on Keeta" followed by the notation "Built on the lightning-fast [Keeta Logo] Keeta Network". Further down the page appears the text "Keeta AI is your real-time advantage layer on Keeta Network" followed by information on services provided by Complainant. The site includes many images of Complainant's graphic logo of a running cat [a cheetah?] and uses a rather spartan overall look and a white-black-and-orange color scheme that is also used on Complainant's own <keeta.com> site and Complainant asserts that it "mirrors Complainant's branding and business model." Nowhere on the site is there any indication that Respondent or its services do not originate from Complainant and it includes a boast that it is "Backed by Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google and Alphabet". A news article submitted by Complainant states that Mr. Schmidt does lead a group of investors who have financed Complainant. In the view of this Panel, the overall impression of Respondent's site leads to the conclusion that it could easily be mistaken for one in which Complainant promotes AI services as a facet of its own business. Based on the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case which has gone unrebutted by Respondent and, upon a preponderance of the available evidence, the Panel further finds that Respondent engages in passing off activity which does not provide it with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the <keetaai.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the KEETA mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge of another's famous trademark can form a solid foundation upon which to build a case for bad faith registration of a disputed domain name and this can be demonstrated based on the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See Infosys Limited v. Anil Zaparde, Infosys Consulting, Inc., D2025-0445 (WIPO March 19, 2025) (Respondent operating in the same industry "increases the likelihood that the Respondent had been aware of the Complainant when the disputed domain name was registered.") Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner."). Here, Complainant asserts that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark and the many references on the <keetaai.com> site to Complainant and its services, as well as the multiple appearances of its graphic logo, all lead the Panel to conclude that this is an accurate assertion. Based on this evidence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <keetaai.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for its services. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website."). The Complaint asserts that Respondent is passing itself off as Complainant by deceiving consumers into believing that its website originates from Complainant. The Panel references the screenshots of the websites that resolve from the domain name which are detailed in the previous section. These show Respondent's use of the KEETA mark and graphic logo in relation to AI-related services which appear to be complementary to those provided by Complainant but without any distinguishing elements or other indication that they are provided by someone other than Complainant. Based on a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to seek commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark within the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: August 19, 2025