DECISION

 

NeuBird, Inc. v. Xiong Dao Hua

Claim Number: FA2508002169241

 

PARTIES

Complainant is NeuBird, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Todd Marabella of Goodwin Procter LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Xiong Dao Hua ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <neubird.com>, registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

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.

 

Eugene I. Low as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 1, 2025; Forum received payment on August 1, 2025.

 

On August 3, 2025, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <neubird.com> domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 August 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@neubird.com. Also on August 11, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 August 25, 2025.

 

On August 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Eugene I. Low 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that "(u)nless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding".

 

The Registration Agreement of the disputed domain name is in Chinese, hence the default language of the proceeding is Chinese.

 

Complainant requested that the language of this proceeding be changed to English. Complainant submitted that its previous communications with Respondent were initiated and proceeded entirely in English; additionally, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name was in English. Complainant submitted that Respondent is therefore clearly capable of understanding these proceedings in English.

 

Respondent submitted a substantive Response in English, but  also requested that the language of the proceedings shall be the language of the Registration Agreement (i.e. Chinese). Respondent submitted as follows:

1). Respondent is a Chinese person and does not use English.

2). The language of the Registration Agreement is Chinese.

3). The previous communications referred to by Complainant was between Complainant and a domain name broker; Respondent never communicated with Complainant.

4). The website associated with the disputed domain name was designed and made by a professional website design company which Respondent hired. The website being in English does not mean that Respondent uses English.

5). Respondent used translation software to read Complainant's submissions and prepare its Response.

The Panel has discretion to determine the language of the proceedings with reference to the overall circumstances and with a view to disposing of the proceedings in a cost-effective and expeditious manner. Here, since that Respondent has already provided a substantive Response in English, the Panel considers that requesting both parties to re-submit their arguments and evidence in Chinese would cause an unnecessary replication of work and would lead to delay in the proceedings. As it appears that neither party would be unfairly disadvantaged by using English as the language of the remaining proceedings, the Panel orders that the language of the proceedings be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant's contentious are summarized as follows:

Officially founded in 2023, Complainant develops and provides generative AI solutions for IT operations. Specifically, Complainant offers an AI-powered Site Reliability Engineering ("SRE") agent named Hawkeye, which utilizes large language models to examine data, including metrics, alerts, logs, and traces to identify, analyze, and resolve IT issues in real time. Complainant's platform allows IT and SRE staff to focus on necessary strategic initiatives, by greatly reducing the time it takes to diagnose and resolve software and infrastructure concerns.

Complainant has actively promoted its services by using the NEUBIRD trademark since at least as early as 2023. Complainant has established widespread consumer recognition and loyalty in the NEUBIRD trademark and Complainant's associated goods and services through its expenditure of significant resources and marketing efforts. As a result of these efforts, Complainant has developed substantial goodwill, consumer recognition, and distinctiveness in the NEUBIRD trademark which are essential to its business. The NEUBIRD trademark has also been featured in various media publications, specifically in reference to Complainant and its products and services.

Complainant has applied for a federal registration for its trademark rights in the NEUBIRD trademark and received a Notice of Allowance as of June 3, 2025. Complainant also owns and operates the website <NeuBird.ai>, which describes and markets Complainant's AI based SRE services under the NEUBIRD trademark. Complainant registered the <NeuBird.ai> domain on April 15, 2023. Complainant was also the prior owner of the domain at issue, <neubird.com>, but its ownership accidentally lapsed and Respondent was able to quickly obtain the domain before Complainant could correct the issue. Complainant now requests a transfer of the disputed domain name from Respondent to Complainant in order to preclude Respondent from continuing its extortionate activities with regard to the domain name.

 

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME FULLY INCORPORATES THE NEUBIRD MARK

The disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's NEUBIRD trademark.

 

First, Respondent cannot dispute that Complainant has rights in the NEUBIRD trademark. Complainant's trademark application and the USPTO's subsequent notice of allowance for that application establishes Complainant's rights in the mark under ICANN Rule ¶ 4(a)(i). In addition, Complainant has acquired common law rights in the name NEUBIRD through its long use of the name, and by investing substantial sums in developing the mark. As a result of these efforts, the NEUBIRD trademark benefits from a high degree of consumer recognition and distinctiveness, becoming one of the strongest marks in the AI based IT and SRE services industry.

 

Second, there can be no dispute that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NEUBIRD trademark. It fully incorporates and is fully comprised of the NEUBIRD trademark.

 

RESPONDENT HAS NO LEGITIMATE RIGHTS

First, unlike Complainant, which has been known by that name for years, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been "commonly known" as "NeuBird" or any similar variation.

 

Furthermore, the NEUBIRD trademark registration permits the inference that Respondent has not been commonly known by any name similar to the disputed domain name.

 

Second, Respondent can make no genuine claim that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <neubird.com> domain name. As an initial point, the <neubird.com> domain was previously owned by Complainant (and used to redirect traffic to Complainant's <NewBird.ai> domain), until the domain's registration accidentally lapsed.

 

Respondent was able to buy the site at auction before Complainant could correct the issue, likely as part of a plan to extort Complainant to have the domain returned.

 

Additionally, while the website at the disputed domain name now displays what appears to be an adult products site, the facts suggest that this clearly slapdash website was established after Respondent began its attempts at extorting funds from Complainant, likely in response to Complainant's refusal to pay Respondent's ransom. As discussed below, the economic demands from Respondent indicate that the website now displaying advertising for adult products was only recently put into place.

 

Additionally, Internet Archive Wayback Machine records for the site show that there was no page displayed at the site as of 2023. Instead, for example in March 2023, the Archive shows that the <neubird.com> address was used to redirect to a holding company called BrandBucket which was offering to sell the website for $3,195. And afterwards, Complainant itself was the owner of the domain, and used it to redirect traffic to its <NeuBird.ai> domain. Even after Respondent acquired the site after its registration accidentally lapsed, there was no legitimate site displayed at the domain. It appears that only after Respondent first reached out to Complainant in November 2024 that Respondent hosted the purported adult products website at <neubird.com>. This strongly suggests that the website presently displayed at <neubird.com> was established by Respondent as part of its attempts to extort funds from Complainant.

 

Finally, Complainant has not licensed or otherwise given permission to Respondent to use the NEUBIRD trademark or the disputed domain name.

 

BAD FAITH

Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith for several reasons.

 

First, Respondent has attempted to use its ownership of the domain to extort excessive fees from Complainant. As shown above, the disputed domain name was on offer for $3195 in 2023. However, in its initial communications to Complainant, Respondent offered to sell the domain for $25,000 on November 4, 2024. When Complainant indicated that it would not pay over $3,000, Respondent then threatened that the fee would likely go up to $100,000 "in 6 months." Respondent then offered to lower the price to $16,800 for a short time, but Complainant again refused.

 

Almost 6 months later, Respondent again attempted to solicit funds in exchange for the disputed domain name, telling Respondent that the disputed domain name was now being "used for adult sex toys" and asking for $20,000. Id. When Complainant refused, Respondent then informed Complainant that the disputed domain name would not be available for less than $150,000. Then, Respondent once more offered to sell the disputed domain name for $20,000. It is plain that Respondent is using the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of soliciting a purchase of said domain by Complainant, the legitimate owner of the NEUBIRD trademark in bad faith.

 

Further, Respondent's offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for amounts greatly exceeding the cost of registration of the domain, demonstrates that Respondent merely purchased the domain with the bad faith intent to then sell it for profit to the legitimate owner of the NEUBIRD trademark. Here, Respondent's repeated offers to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for between $150,000 to $16,800, when the website was on offer for ~$3000 prior to Complainant's founding is clear evidence of Respondent's bad faith.

 

Furthermore, Respondent's establishment of a sham adult products site after Complainant first refused Respondent's extortionate demands is further evidence of the bad faith, as it appears from Respondent's communications that the subject matter of the site was selected to embarrass Complainant into complying with Respondent's demands.

 

In sum, it is apparent that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith in violation of ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent's contentions are summarized as follows:

 

a. Complainant has no rights or legitimate interests in the trademark NEUBIRD. The status of Complainant's trademark is LIVE/APPLICATION/Published for Opposition. Complainant has no trademark registration under current status. 

 

b. Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

1. Respondent registered the trademark NEUBIRD in China on March 12, 2025: 

Application No. / registration No. : 83993981

Date of application : March 12, 2025

International Class : 10

Goods / services : Sex Toys, Sex Dolls, Condom.

 

2. Respondent purchased the disputed domain name on November 14, 2024, and used it for Respondent's company official website to promote and sell the products of sex toys. Respondent's company (深圳市硕英数字科技有限公司 in Chinese, referred to as 'We' here) was established in Shenzhen China. We are a manufacturer and supplier of adult sex toys. We are a hi-tech enterprise integrating with design, development and sales.

In the communications between Complainant and the broker, as well as in the Complaint, the broker and Complainant repeatedly mentioned that the disputed domain name was used for "Adult Sex Toys", which also can prove that Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of Adult Sex Toys.

 

3. Respondent's trademark does not conflict with Complainant's trademark. The respective classes of goods/services and the respective jurisdictions are different.

 

4. Response to Complainant's statement.

(1) "Exhibit E. And afterwards, NeuBird itself was the owner of the domain, and used it to redirect traffic to its <NeuBird.ai> domain."

Response:

Complainant's Exhibit E cannot prove that it was the owner of the disputed domain name. If the original owner used the disputed domain name for the paid advertising / pay-per-click links , it also can let the disputed domain name redirect to <neubird.ai>. If the complainant ever bought the disputed domain name , it should provide the evidence of the transaction.

 

(2) "It appears that only after Respondent first reached out to NeuBird in November 2024 that Respondent hosted the purported adult products website at <neubird.com>. This strongly suggests that the website presently displayed at <neubird.com> was established by Respondent as part of its attempts to extort funds from NeuBird." 

Response:

Respondent never communicated with Complainant. Complainant was corresponding with the domain name broker.

2) Adult products do not mean illegality or bad faith.

3) Complainant claimed that Respondent registered the disputed domain name as part of attempts to extort funds from NeuBird. This conclusion is

absurd. Respondent registered the trademark NEUBIRD in order to use it for its products of sex toys, which has nothing to do with Complainant and its trademark.

 

c. The disputed domain name has been registered and used in good faith.

1. Respondent purchased the disputed domain name, and used it for Respondent's company official website to promote and sell sex toys.

The Origin of NeuBird:

·       Sex Toys, one of main products is Dildo.

·       And in China, slang of penis is called 'Bird'.

Respondent liked 'new Bird', but <newbird.com> was not available, based on the pronunciation , and changed it to 'neu bird ', and the connotation of 'neu bird' is also perfect for sex toys products, so Respondent decided to use 'Neu Bird' as the trademark for its sex toys products.

 

2. The trademark registered by the Respondent and the use of the disputed domain name can also infer that the Respondent obtained the disputed domain name for its own use.

 

3. Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark before notice of the dispute. Complainant's products and services are different from those of the Respondent, and they are in different fields. In addition, Complainant's trademark is still under application, or there is no trademark yet, let alone well-known trademark. Therefore, there is no reason to infer that Respondent should know Complainant or its trademark.

 

B. The disputed domain name has been used in good faith.

1.The Complaint was brought in bad faith. Stone/NetLee is not Respondent. From Exhibit D provided by Complainant, Complainant clearly knew from the beginning to the end that Stone/NetLee is the domain name broker, not the domain name holder / Respondent. However, in the Complaint, Complainant defined the domain name broker as "Respondent". This is a deliberate distortion of the facts to mislead the Panel.

 

2. Complainant deliberately concealed key evidence information in bad faith. The email evidence Exhibit D provided by Complainant is incomplete. Complainant concealed the replies of Complainant. 

 

3. Respondent has never authorized any domain name broker to sell the disputed domain name. Respondent requested the domain name broker to answer various questions, including its authority to act.

 

4. In relation to the email correspondence between Complainant and the broker (Stone/NetLee), Complainant claimed that Complainant do not have that brand, that is, no NEUBIRD trademark.

In this circumstance, the following conclusions can be drawn :

(i) Complainant agreed and desired to continue negotiations with the broker, and did not believe that the broker's activities have infringed upon Complainant and its trademark's rights.

(ii) Complainant was encouraging the broker to continue negotiations instead of informing the broker that Complainant has the trademark rights to terminate the broker's activities.

(iii) Complainant intentionally induced the broker to continue negotiations with Complainant in order to obtain the necessary evidence to initiate this Administrative Proceeding.

(iv) Complainant claimed that the disputed domain name is not important to Complainant. This also indicates that Complainant believed that the disputed domain name and the broker's activities did not violate the Complainant's rights.

(v) The negotiations between Complainant and the broker was very friendly. This also proves that the "threats and extortion" claimed by Complainant in the Complaint do not match the actual facts, and that the Complainant intentionally distorted the facts in order to initiate this Administrative Proceeding.

 

5. Complainant has been actively negotiating the selling price of the disputed domain name with the domain name broker / Stone from NetLee. In the entire communications between Complainant and the domain name broker, Complainant replied to almost all of the broker's emails promptly and kept actively negotiating the price of the disputed domain name. Throughout the entire communications, Complainant never mentioned its trademark rights or that the broker's activities constituted harassment to Complainant, but instead tried to obtain the lowest purchase price for the disputed domain name. Therefore, the extortion alleged by Complainant is essentially a failure to obtain the lowest purchase price for the disputed domain name.

This is a classic Plan B: reverse domain name hijacking.

 

6. Response to some of the points in the Complaint :

In [a.] the section of FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS, Complainant stated that (1) "The NEUBIRD trademark has also been featured in various media publications, specifically in reference to NeuBird and its products and services. See, e.g., https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/tech-companies/microsoft-s-m12-investsanother-22-5m-into-nuebird-months-after-its-100m-valuation-seed-round/arAA1vGLTm, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250710281598/en/NeuBird-Joins-AWSISVAccelerate-Program-to-Scale-Agentic-AI-for-IT-Operations, https://Finance.Yahoo.Com/News/NeuBird-Raises-5-75-Billion-195110158.Html."

Response :

In these samples/evidences above, only 'https://www.businesswire.com/news/home…' has content, and displayed the date 'Jul 10, 2025 12:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time' . This news is really new, it cannot support Complainant's statement that "NeuBird has developed substantial goodwill, consumer recognition, and distinctiveness in the NEUBIRD trademark". And the other links are empty.

 

(2) "Based on Respondent's communications with NeuBird, it is apparent that the Respondent acquired the Accused Domain with no intent to use the domain itself, but rather, as part of a scheme to solicit a large sum of money from NeuBird."

Response

1). Respondent never communicated with Complainant. Again, Complainant's communication partner was the domain name broker Stone from NetLee.

2). The Respondent obtained the disputed domain name for the purpose of using it for adult sex toys products. Since early December 2024, the disputed domain name was being used for the products of sex toys in good faith. Complainant knew it very well.

3). Respondent has registered the NEUBIRD trademark (Date of Application : March 12 , 2025)

 

(3) "as it appears from Respondent's communications that the subject matter of the site was selected to embarrass NeuBird into complying with Respondent's demands."

Response:

1). Goods for Respondent's trademark NEUBIRD : SEX TOYES , SEX DOLL ,

CONDOM .

2). The website associated with <neubird.com> shows SEX TOYES and SEX DOLLS .

3). Sex Toys are common and popular products.

 

To sum up :

(1) Respondent has never authorized any domain name broker to sell the disputed domain name.

(2) The activities of the domain name broker is not equivalent to those of Respondent.

(3) Complainant negotiated the price of the disputed domain name with the domain name broker through email, which has nothing to do with Respondent .

(4) Complainant has been actively negotiating the price of the disputed domain with the broker and encouraging and enticing the negotiations to continue.

(5) Respondent owns the trademark NEUBIRD .

(6) The disputed domain name was being legally used for sex toys products in good faith.

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

Complainant is attempting a reverse domain name hijacking（RDNH） 

(1) Complainant attempted to purchase the disputed domain name at a low price, but after failing, and without a trademark registration, Complainant is using this Administrative Proceeding as a bargaining tool

and a last resort (Plan B).

 (2) In the correspondence between Complainant and the broker, as well as in the Complaint, the broker and Complainant repeatedly mentioned that the disputed domain name was used for "Adult Sex Toys."

It is impossible that Complainant was unaware that the disputed domain name was being legally used in good faith. However, even though Complainant knew that the disputed domain name was being used in good faith, the complainant still initiated the Administrative Proceeding.

(3) Complainant deliberately identified the domain name broker as the Respondent and intentionally distorted the facts to mislead the Panel.

The Complaint was brought in bad faith.

(4) Complainant deliberately concealed key evidence.

(5) In [a.] the section of FACTUAL AND LEGAL GROUNDS in the Complaint, Complainant provided three samples / evidence, but only one link has content. Complainant provided these fake examples or evidence to mislead the Panel.

(6) Complainant encouraged and induced the domain name broker to negotiate the price of the disputed domain name in order to obtain the necessary evidence to initiate the Administrative Proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish the first element. The Complaint accordingly fails. The Panel also finds Complainant to have engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

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

In essence, Complainant is relying on:

 

(1) A USPTO trademark application for the NEUBIRD trademark for which a Notice of Allowance has been issued but which has not yet matured to registration. Contrary to Complainant's contentions, it is the prevailing view in UDRP proceedings that a pending trademark application would not by itself establish trademark rights under the first element. It is doubtful whether the two decisions quoted by Complainant indeed support Complainant's contention (Love City Brewing Company v. Anker Fog/Love City Brewing Company, FA1710001753144 (Forum  Nov. 17, 2017) and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. v. Gold Anchor Serv., D2003-0443 (WIPO July 17, 2003); those two decisions have been commented on in more recent UDRP decisions, e.g. Auradine, Inc. v. SpeedHost247 / SpeedHost247 Web Hosting (FA2506002163519) (Forum July 30, 2025); Auradine, Inc. v. trre ger (FA2503002146830) (Forum April 25, 2025). See also Paragraph 1.1.4 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition.

 

(2) Common law rights in the NEUBIRD trademark. Complainant asserted that it "has actively promoted its services by using the NEUBIRD trademark since at least as early as 2023. Complainant has established widespread consumer recognition and loyalty in the NEUBIRD trademark and Complainant's associated goods and services through its expenditure of significant resources and marketing efforts. As a result of these efforts, Complainant has developed substantial goodwill, consumer recognition, and distinctiveness in the NEUBIRD trademark which are essential to its business. The NEUBIRD trademark has also been featured in various media publications, specifically in reference to Complainant and its products and services." 

 

In light of those contentions, the Panel would have expected evidence in the form of marketing materials, media publications, customer testimonials, etc. since 2023. However, Complainant has failed to provide any evidence to support those assertions, save for three hyperlinks to alleged media publications (two of those hyperlinks are directed to webpages which indicate that the original contents were no longer available; the remaining hyperlink is directed to an article dated July 10, 2025). Complainant also claimed to be a prior registrant of the disputed domain name, but again failed to provide any supporting evidence. In the Panel's view, clearly there is insufficient evidence for the Panel to find that Complainant has established common law rights in the NEUBIRD trademark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish the first element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests / Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Since Complainant has failed to establish the first element, the Panel will not analyze the other elements of the Policy.

 

Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)

RDNH is defined under the Rules to mean using UDRP in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of the disputed domain name. The mere lack of success of a complaint does not necessarily constitute RDNH, but the panel may make a finding of RDNH if the complainant knew it could not reasonably succeed as to any of the three elements.

 

The Panel makes a finding of RDNH against Complainant. Complainant, especially since it is legally represented, should have been aware that this Complaint could not have reasonably succeeded – not least because of the almost complete lack of supporting evidence. In addition, this case smells of the Plan B scenario where Complainant is resorting to a contrived UDRP after unsuccessful attempts at purchasing the disputed domain name.

 

DECISION

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 <neubird.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Eugene I. Low, Panelist

Dated: September 9, 2025