DECISION

 

OpenAI OpCo, LLC v. Nolan Holden

Claim Number: FA2508002173771

 

PARTIES

Complainant is OpenAI OpCo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Daniel E. Gaitan of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Nolan Holden ("Respondent"), Kentucky, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <chatgpt4kids.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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 26, 2025; Forum received payment on August 26, 2025.

 

On August 28, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <chatgpt4kids.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 August 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 18, 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@chatgpt4kids.com. Also on August 29, 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 September 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is an AI research and deployment company. Its mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity. Since its founding in December 2015, Complainant has experienced rapid growth and success, expanding its API services to over 195 countries and territories, driving innovation through cutting-edge language models such as GPT, with groundbreaking releases like GPT-3 and GPT-4o. In 2022, Complainant launched ChatGPT, an advanced AI system that quickly gained popularity for its ability to engage users in natural, coherent, and often nuanced conversations. Within just two months of release, ChatGPT had reached an impressive 100 million users. According to an analyst quoted by The Guardian and Reuters, "In 20 years following the internet space, we cannot recall a faster ramp in a consumer internet app."  In the first week following the launch of ChatGPT's image generation feature powered by the GPT-4o model on March 25, 2025, users generated over 700 million images. Reflecting on ChatGPT's explosive growth, CEO Sam Altman noted that its launch 26 months earlier was "one of the craziest viral moments [he'd] ever seen," with one million users joining in five days, but by March 31, 2025, he reported that one million users had joined in the last hour alone. ChatGPT has experienced remarkable growth, recently surpassing 700 million weekly active users—up from 500 million at the end of March 2025—serving approximately 9% of the global population each week. ChatGPT users have submitted over 2.5 billion prompts per day, amounting to more than 912 billion requests per year. According to Similarweb: ChatGPT recorded 5.720 billion visits worldwide as of July 2025, and ranked number 6 in its Global Rank, which reflects overall website popularity across all traffic, including both desktop and mobile; in its visit-based rankings for the same month, ChatGPT was the 4th most-visited site for desktop users worldwide, and the 5th most-visited site across combined desktop and mobile traffic for all industries; ChatGPT also held the number 1 position as the most-visited site in the "Programming and Developer Software" category for both desktop and mobile users worldwide. Sensor Tower reported that in the United States, during the 30-day period ending August 26, 2025, ChatGPT consistently ranked first in the "Top Free" category across the "Overall," "Applications," and "Productivity" charts for both the Google Play and iOS stores. Additionally, in the "Top Grossing" rankings for the "Productivity" category, ChatGPT placed first on iOS and second on the Google Play Store. Further cementing its dominance in the app marketplace, as of August 26, 2025, Apple's iOS App Store lists ChatGPT as the number one "Top Free" app for both iPhone and Google Play ranks ChatGPT as the number one popular app on its platform in the "Top Free" category. Complainant's ChatGPT has become a globally recognized AI system, with millions of users engaging with it for a wide range of applications, from entertainment to professional use. Complainant's technology has been rapidly adopted across industries, including healthcare, education, finance, and entertainment. Committed to AI safety and the responsible development, Complainant prioritizes ethical and transparent deployment of its AI tools. As the New York Times noted, "OpenAI has taken commendable steps to avoid the kinds of racist, sexist, and offensive outputs that have plagued other chatbots." Since its launch, ChatGPT has garnered widespread attention and praise, and has been featured in renowned global publications. Complainant asserts rights to the mark CHATGPT through its registration in Switzerland in 2023. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.

 

According to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CHATGPT mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, while merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "4 kids", and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website promotes an advanced AI platform branded as "ChatGPT for Kids", which it markets as "Built for Children, Controlled by Parents", and which requires a subscription fee. The resolving website was flagged by the Zscaler security platform as a phishing site. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The resolving website refers to Complainant and purports to offer services that compete with those of Complainant. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights to the CHATGPT mark prior to registering the disputed domain name based on Respondent's use of Complainant's mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the mark CHATGPT dating back to at least 2023 and uses it to provide generative artificial intelligence products and services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The resolving website refers to Complainant and it's services, and purports to offer services that compete with those of 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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's CHATGPT mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "4 kids", and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLDs"). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a gTLD and/or generic terms and/or relevant or meaningless letters is generally insufficient in differentiating a disputed domain name from the mark it incorporates. See 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."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Complainant to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Nolan Holden". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The resolving website purports to offer services that compete with the services offered by Complainant. Panels have held that using another's mark to resolve to a website that offers products or services in competition with a Complainant's business is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. josh greenly / All Access Tickets, FA1507001629217 (Forum August 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name as required under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), where the respondent was using the disputed domain name to host a web page that featured links to services that competed with those of the complainant); see also See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer competing services. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use); see also See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (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)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark: the resolving website refers to Complainant and its services. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <chatgpt4kids.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: September 22, 2025