DECISION

 

Google LLC v. xianhui lan

Claim Number: FA2508002173902

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is xianhui lan ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org>, registered with Cloudflare, 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 27, 2025. Forum received payment on August 27, 2025.

 

On August 27, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names are registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 August 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 17, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@doppl-ai.com, postmaster@dopplai.org. Also on August 28, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 18, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Google LLC, owns common law rights in the DOPPL Mark and registered trademark rights in the DOPPL and Design Mark, under which Complainant provides AI-powered mobile application software that provides users a virtual fitting room that allows them to create and share videos of themselves wearing outfits without having to try them on physically. Complainant's DOPPL software is available via download on the Google Play Store and Apple's App Store. 

 

On June 26, 2025, Google publicly announced the launch of its DOPPL software, which was immediately followed by the publication of numerous unsolicited news stories from media organizations across the globe. As a result of marketing activities and extensive unsolicited press coverage, the DOPPL Mark has become well known and consumers associate the mark exclusively with Complainant and its AI related goods and services.

 

Respondent registered the <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names on June 27, 2025, one day after Google publicly launched its DOPPL software. The domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Google's DOPPL Mark. 

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names. Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the DOPPL Mark. Whois records do not suggest that Respondent is known as Doppl. Respondent has not used and is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. On the contrary, Respondent is using the domain names in connection with commercial websites that are clearly attempting to create the false impression that they are operated by or are affiliated with Complainant and its Doppl software, or otherwise to attract consumers to Respondent's websites by using the identical DOPPL name and mark, to generate web traffic. Respondent's websites include links to access and/or download Respondent's own third-party Doppl-branded software referring to it falsely as the "Official Google Labs Release."

 

Respondent opportunistically registered and is using the <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names in bad faith. The notoriety and distinctive qualities of the DOPPL Mark, the timing of the domain name registrations, and the content on Respondent's websites render it wholly implausible that Respondent independently and innocently registered the domain names.

 

In this context, Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its actual registration information is further evidence of bad faith, as is Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's cease-and-desist communication of August 4, 2025.

 

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 rights in the figurative DOPPL mark, registered in the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO"), Application No. 018891378, registered on November 9, 2023 for inter alia  artificial intelligence software, in International Class 9.

 

Complainant has also shown that, at the time of the filing of its Complaint, through extensive use and third-party publicity, it had acquired common law rights in the word mark DOPPL. 

 

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 <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's DOPPL word mark, differing only by the addition of the abbreviation "ai" and, in one case, a hyphen. These differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain names from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" and ".org" generic top-level domains ("gTLDs") 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 names 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 names or a name corresponding to the domain names 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 names, 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 names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names were both registered on June 27, 2025, one day after Complainant's public announcement of the launch of its DOPPL software. The <doppl-ai> domain name resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's DOPPL mark throughout and copies of images from Complainant's website at "www.labs.google/doppl". A link to "Download Doppl AI" leads to the website to which Respondent's <dopplai.org> domain name resolves, which offers "DopplAI Android APK" software for download.

 

Although Respondent's <doppl-ai.com> website contains disclaimers of any affiliation with or endorsement by Complainant and of any ownership of Complainant's trademarks or intellectual property, the disclaimers are not prominently displayed and Internet users are unlikely to become aware of them. Instead, Internet users are likely falsely to believe that both websites are operated by Complainant.

 

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 names on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names. 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 names.

 

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.

 

While the Panel is not satisfied that Complainant had acquired common law trademark rights by the time the domain names were registered, under UDRP jurisprudence a registrant may be found to have acted in bad faith when taking unfair advantage of nascent trademark rights. WIPO Overview 3.0 ¶ 3.8.2.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that, although Respondent may not have been aware of Complainant's EUIPO registration, it was fully aware of Complainant and its nascent DOPPL common law trademark rights when Respondent registered the <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's nascent mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's websites and of the services promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

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 <doppl-ai.com> and <dopplai.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: September 19, 2025