DECISION

 

Google LLC v. damo zeng

Claim Number: FA2508002169246

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <veo3api.ai>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 4, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <veo3api.ai> 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 August 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 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@veo3api.ai. Also on August 6, 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 27, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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

Created in 1998, Complainant, Google LLC, is a global company with offices throughout North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East. Its Google search engine has become one of the most highly recognized Internet search services in the world. Complainant's primary website is at "www.google.com", and Complainant owns and operates hundreds of GOOGLE-formative domain names, including nearly every top-level country code domain consisting solely of the GOOGLE mark. In 2025 Brand Finance ranked GOOGLE as the third most-valuable brand in its Global 500 ranking.

 

On May 14, 2024, Google announced its artificial intelligence ("AI") powered video generation offering under the name and trademark VEO. On December 16, 2024, Google announced and launched Veo 2, the second iteration of its AI-powered video generation offering. On May 20, 2025, Google announced and launched Veo 3, its third iteration of its AI-powered video generation offering. There has been extensive unsolicited media coverage relating to the VEO products.

 

Respondent registered the <veo3api.ai> domain name on May 22, 2025, more than one year after Google launched Veo, more than five months after Google launched Veo 2, and two days after Google launched Veo 3.

 

The <veo3api.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VEO mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <veo3api.ai> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the VEO trademark, nor any other trademarks owned by Complainant. Whois records do not suggest that Respondent is known as Veo 3, Veo, or any variation of Veo. Respondent has not used and is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. On the contrary, the <veo3api.ai> domain name resolves to a website that intentionally creates the impression that it is operated by or affiliated with, sponsored or endorsed by, or otherwise authorized by Complainant in relation to its VEO offerings, and which is being used to promote Respondent's own identical competing commercial AI-powered video generation offerings under the nearly identical name, "Veo 3 API" and/or which is publishing Complainant's Veo 3 API and associated documentation without Complainant's permission.

 

The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Respondent opportunistically registered and is using the <veo3api.ai> domain name in bad faith. The notoriety and distinctive qualities of the VEO trademark, the timing of the registration of the domain name, and the content displayed on the associated website render it wholly implausible that Respondent independently and innocently registered the domain name.

 

Respondent's willful intent to violate Complainant's intellectual property rights is exhibited by Respondent's registration and use of a domain name that fully incorporates the identical VEO mark, and using the opportunistically registered domain name to promote Respondent's own identical and/or competing commercial offerings for Respondent's own commercial gain.

 

Complainant's use of the VEO mark, the widespread, unsolicited media coverage associated with Complainant's offerings under the VEO mark, and Respondent's registration of the domain name well after Complainant began offering services under its VEO mark (and just two days after Complainant launched Veo 3) clearly demonstrate that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith to target Complainant and its VEO brand.

 

Further, Respondent has lost at least two prior UDRP cases in which it similarly targeted a complainant known for their AI-related offerings. See Midjourney, Inc. v. damo zeng, FA2410002121174 (Forum Nov. 19, 2024) (ordering transfer of the <journeyart.ai> domain name); Midjourney, Inc. v. damo zeng, FA2412002132459 (Forum Jan. 29, 2025) (ordering transfer of the <midjourney.fm> domain name). Previous UDRP decisions can be used to show a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy 4(b)(ii).

 

In this context, Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its actual registration information is further evidence of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 shown that it has registered rights in the mark VEO through registrations in several European countries for inter alia "Providing non-downloadable software using AI (artificial intelligence) for creating and generating images, video, audio, and music from text", the earliest being in Austria, namely Reg. No. 328856, registered on November 13, 2024.

 

Complainant has also shown that, through use and extensive media coverage, it had acquired common law rights in the VEO mark by the time the domain name was registered on May 22, 2025.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <veo3api.ai> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's VEO mark, only differing by the addition of the number "3" and the descriptive term "api" (a common software industry acronym for "Application Programming Interface"). These differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's VEO mark. The inconsequential ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

As noted, the <veo3api.ai> domain name was registered on May 22, 2025, a year after Complainant launched Veo, more than five months after Complainant launched Veo 2, and two days after Complainant launched Veo 3. It resolves to a website promoting "Google Veo 3 API" and inviting Internet users to register with <veo3api.ai> for an account. 

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <veo3api.ai> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its VEO mark and its Veo 3 AI-powered video generation offering when Respondent registered the <veo3api.ai> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the products and services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

As to whether Respondent acted in bad faith by using a proxy service to hide its WHOIS registration data, as noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6, "there are recognized legitimate uses of privacy and proxy registration services", and the circumstances in which such services are used can however impact a panel's assessment of bad faith. As is widely known, the use of a privacy or proxy registration service is a common practice adopted by many legitimate businesses and individuals to protect against spam, identity theft, and other security risks. Absent additional evidence showing that such privacy was employed specifically to conceal wrongful conduct or to prevent a trademark owner from identifying the registrant, the mere use of a privacy service does not in itself support a finding of bad faith.

 

Here, the Panel finds the structure of the domain name and Respondent's conduct in registering the domain name two days after the launch of Complainant's Veo 3 product support a finding of bad faith use by Respondent of a proxy service.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <veo3api.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: August 28, 2025