DECISION

 

StayinFront, Inc. v. Narendra Ghimire / Deep Vision Architects

Claim Number: FA2509002177628

­­

­PARTIES

Complainant is StayinFront, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Gene Bolmarcich, Connecticut, USA. Respondent is Narendra Ghimire / Deep Vision Architects ("Respondent"), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <augment.ai>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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 Panelists in this proceeding.

 

Claire R. Kowarsky and Gerald M. Levine as Panelists and Nick J. Gardner as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 17, 2025; Forum received payment on September 17, 2025.

 

On September 18, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <augment.ai> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 September 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 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@augment.ai. Also on September 22, 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. On September 22, 2025 Respondent requested a four-day extension under Forum Supp. Rule 6(a)(i) and ICANN Rule 5(b) which was granted by Forum, thus setting a new response deadline of October 20, 2025.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 20, 2025.

 

On October 23, 2025 Complainant filed an unsolicited supplemental submission (see further below).

 

On October 29, 2025 pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Claire R. Kowarsky and Gerald M. Levine as Panelists and Nick J. Gardner as Chair.

 

On November 6, 2025 Respondent filed an unsolicited provisional reply to Complainant's supplemental submission.

 

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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant says as follows. Augment is a wholly owned business of Complainant and operates a website at www.augment.com. Augment is a leading provider of "Extended Reality immersive technology products and services. Augment provides solutions for creating 3D visualizations of products, scaled in a real-world environment in real time through a tablet or smartphone. Through the Augment platform, businesses can easily deploy and manage visualization solutions for application to field sales, e-commerce, r&d and training functions. It is an innovator in this burgeoning field of technology".

 

Complainant owns the following US trademark registrations (the AUGMENT trademarks"):-

U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 7711393: the standard character mark AUGMENT; Filing date: 04/11/2024; Registration date: 03/04/25; International Class: 042; Goods/services: "Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for creating virtual 3D visualizations for use in field sales simulations of product displays, creating 3D models of products for e-commerce purposes, and for creating 3D product models"

 

U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 5706848: the standard character mark AUGMENT; Filing date: 10/09/2017; Registration date: 03/26/19; International Classes: 9, 35, 42; Goods: (Class 9) "Computer application software for smartphones, namely, software for downloading pictures, audio and video content to smartphones; computer e-commerce software to allow users to perform electronic business transactions via a global computer network; computer graphics software; computer software for organizing and viewing digital images and photographs; downloadable mobile applications for smartphones for viewing augmented reality 3D models; virtual reality software for viewing augmented reality 3D models"; Services (Class 35) "Product demonstration services, including presentation of goods via mobile phone networks"; Services (Class 42) "Computer services, namely, acting as an application service provider in the field of knowledge management to host computer application software for the purpose of viewing 3D models; computer software development in the field of augmented reality and viewing 3D

models; design and development of computer software for augmented reality and viewing 3D models; software development consulting in the field of augmented reality and viewing 3D models application"

 

Complainant says the disputed domain name <augment.ai> is confusingly similar to Complainant's AUGMENT trademarks. It incorporates the mark in its entirety without alteration. The addition of the TLD ".ai" is irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy given the following.

·       Respondent is not commonly known by the name "augment."

·       Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its AUGMENT mark.

·       The domain has never been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, it has been passively held and listed for sale.

 

Panels have consistently rejected such circumstances as legitimate interests. See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004 (no authorization, not commonly known by the mark, offered for sale),

and Lilly ICOS LLC v. Dan Eccles, WIPO Case No. D2004-0750 (mere registration does not create rights absent bona fide use).

 

Timing and Knowledge of Complainant's Rights. Complainant filed its U.S. trademark application for AUGMENT on October 9, 2017 two months before the domain registration on December 16, 2017. Respondent therefore registered the domain with knowledge of Complainant's rights. Knowledge of a complainant's mark at the time of registration supports bad faith. See The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. v. Act One Internet Solutions, WIPO Case No. D2003-0103

 

Offer for Sale at Exorbitant Price. The disputed domain name is offered for sale through GoDaddy.com as a "Premium Domain" with a minimum offer price of USD $4,999,429. This is vastly in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs and constitutes bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(i). Panels have repeatedly found that such conduct demonstrates bad faith. See CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Gaddoor Saidi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0243 (respondent sought $1.5M); General Electric Company v. John Bakhit, WIPO Case No. D2000-0386 (attempt to sell domain back to trademark owner for profit); Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji, WIPO Case No. D2013-0150 (offer to sell domain for $1.5M showed bad faith).

 

Passive Holding. Even absent active use, passive holding can constitute bad faith where the circumstances indicate targeting of a complainant's mark. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Here, Respondent has done nothing other than hold the domain and attempt to sell it at an exorbitant price.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent is a domain name investor who purchases and sells generic and descriptive domain names as part of its business. Respondent notes that Complainant claims trademark rights in "AUGMENT" through two US trademark registrations. Respondent notes that Complainant's second trademark was only registered in March 2025, well after the domain's 2017 registration, making it irrelevant to bad faith considerations. Respondent however concedes that Complainant's trademark registrations satisfy the requirements of the Policy.

 

The essence of Respondent's case is that "augment" is a common dictionary word which is by no means exclusively associated with the

Complainant, and which is one of several thematically-related dictionary words registered by the Respondent and offered for general sale. It says the word "augment" is generic to a cornerstone concept of "augmented reality", which is one of the areas in which AI technology is utilized and services offered by a wide number of companies.

 

Respondent goes on to observe that "The Complaint does not allege or provide evidence it sells anything, anywhere, to any consumers in any

volume. The Complaint is entirely devoid of any information about the commercial size or footprint of the Complainant, what it sells, how much of it, to whom or where. Either the Complainant is ashamed of its business reputation or it does not have much of one to speak of, given the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever that, aside from having acquired two US federal trademark registrations, there is no evidence or discussion of any actual business conducted by the Complainant anywhere, to anyone, consisting of anything".

 

Respondent then goes on to provide considerable detail of matters which it says support its position. The following is a summary of the main points Respondent makes. 

 

Multiple Trademark Holders – Respondent says  that "augment" is far from unique to the Complainant. In the US alone, there are 15 registered/pending trademarks where "AUGMENT" is the sole textual component, owned by various entities. Internationally, there are 67 registered marks and 9 pending applications across 21 jurisdictions among 24 different applicants. Notably, Augment AI Corp. owns US trademark registrations specifically for AI software, directly competing with the Complainant's claimed distinction in AI/AR software

 

Widespread Commercial Use.  Respondent provides extensive evidence of legitimate businesses using "augment" domain names as follows:

 

Augment.co - the home of Augment AI, a vendor of AI-powered marketing tools

Augment.im - Augment Limited, a vendor of AI-powered financial reporting tools

Augment.legal - Augment Legal Inc., a vendor of AI-powered legal tools

Augment.cfd - another Augment AI, a vendor of AI services

Augment.plus - a vendor of AI-powered content, recruitment and call center services

Augment.design - a product design agency specializing in augmented reality hardware

Augment.lu - a facility management analysis software company

Augment.no - a re-direct to the purchaser of Augment AS, a Norwegian AI firm

Augment.se - a Swedish investment banking advisory

Augment.agency - a brand consultancy

Augment.audio - an international audio engineering firm, based in France

Augment.bike - a mountain bike manufacturer

Augment.health - a bladder function monitor vendor

Augment.ventures - a crypto currency and token advisory

Augment.us - a US human resources firm

Augment.co.uk - a UK digital marketing firm

Augment.org - an online MBA program

Augment.eco - a French scooter vendor

Augment.ro - a Romanian multi-industry importer and distributor

 

Respondent says that this widespread use demonstrates that "augment" is a valuable generic term, particularly in AI and augmented reality contexts.

 

Legitimate Domain Investment Business. Respondent says it is established as a legitimate domain investor with a portfolio of dictionary word .ai domains. Respondent cites the following previous UDRP decisions where Respondent successfully defended similar dictionary word domains:

 

Amadeus IT Group, S.A. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Narendra Ghimire, Deep Vision Architects WIPO Case No. DCO2022-0040 (<Amadeus.co>)

Sage Global Services Limited v. Narendra Ghimire, Deep Vision Architects

WIPO Case No. DAI2023-0010 (<Sage.ai>)

Abnormal Security Corporation v. Narendra Ghimire Forum Claim Number: FA 2099733 (<Abnormal.ai>)

Sonata Software Limited v. Narendra Ghimire, Deep Vision Architects

WIPO Case No. DAI2023-0051 (<sonata.ai>)

Themis Solutions Inc. v. Narendra Ghimire / Deep Vision Architects

Forum Claim Number: FA 2139218 (<Clio.ai>)

 

Pattern of Similar Registrations. Respondent provides evidence that it owns numerous related dictionary word .ai domain names focusing on modification-related verbs including other forms of the verb "augment",

including:

 

accentuate

accumulate

actualize

augmented

augmenting

augmentation

compound

digitalize

experience

formulate

immerse

intensify

metamorphose

mutate

retouch

tessellate

warp

 

Respondent says that Complainant's assertion that "AUGMENT is distinctive in AI/AR software" is "thoroughly debunked" by evidence of multiple other companies, including Augment AI Corp., operating in the same space with similar trademark rights.

 

Respondent says it establishes legitimate interest through:

·       The generic nature of "augment" as a dictionary word;

·       Respondent's established business of trading dictionary word domains;

·       The absence of any targeting of the Complainant.

 

Bad Faith Registration and Use

Respondent says there is no bad faith because:

·       The Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant (and suggests the Complainant is likely unknown even to Panel members);

·       "Augment" is a common dictionary word with multiple commercial uses;

·       The domain was registered consistent with Respondent's portfolio strategy;

·       No evidence exists of targeting Complainant specifically.

 

The Response cites a number of previous UDRP decisions that it says support the following propositions:

 

Trading in dictionary word domains is legitimate per se.

High prices for generic domains does not indicate bad faith.

Complainant must prove targeting, not just ownership of a trademark.

 

FINDINGS

The term "augment" is a commonly used dictionary word of particular relevance to the field of artificial intelligence. Multiple entities around the world make use of that term. Respondent is a trader in domain names who has a business model of registering dictionary words. He has a significant portfolio of such names using the .ai TLD including many other names similar to the domain name at issue. Complainant has provided no evidence that indicates the term augment or "augment ai" has become recognized as relating exclusively or predominantly to Complainant. Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant at the time it acquired the domain name. Purchase of a generic domain name is not inherently evidence of bad faith, nor is offering it for sale at a substantial sum. There is no evidence of Respondent targeting or taking advantage of Complainant or its trademarks.

 

DISCUSSION

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

A preliminary issue arises in relation to the admissibility of Complainant's unsolicited supplemental submission.

 

Under UDRP Rule 12 and Forum Supplemental Rule 7, it is within the Panel's discretion whether to consider any unsolicited additional submissions received from a Party. See, e.g., Bridgewater Associates, LP v. Tony Klausing,  FA 1928070 (Forum Feb. 8, 2021) ("Panels are generally not inclined to allow unsolicited additional submissions by the parties unless the party seeking to make the additional submission has shown some exceptional circumstances or the panel in its discretion finds there is some additional information or pertinent facts in the additional submissions that is crucial to the case and such new information could not have possibly been included in the original or amended complaint."); K1 Promotions, LLC v. Jordan Fabel / Brandon Myers (Forum Sept. 7, 2020) ("Complainant has not identified any particular issues that it could not reasonably have addressed in the Complaint and that it considered of sufficient importance to justify the filing of an additional submission. Complainant has simply proceeded as if there is an automatic right of reply to the Response."); but see Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Cloudflare Hostmaster / Cloudflare, Inc., FA 1979588 (Forum Mar. 9, 2022) ("With respect to the element outlined in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Respondent attacks the validity of Complainant's registered mark.  The Panel finds that the basis for this attack was not foreseeable, and for that reason the Panel will afford Complainant an opportunity to respond to those arguments through its Additional Submission.").

 

In the present case the Panel declines to exercise its discretion to admit the Complainant's supplemental submission. This submission seems to the Panel to largely comprise matters of submission rather than any new material and it does not significantly assist the Panel in reaching a determination.  Further the submission seems to be unduly argumentative (e.g. "The Respondent's defense, relying heavily on the inherent nature of the word "augment" (whether due to its being in the dictionary or otherwise being a "common" word) fails to consider the complete picture of the Respondent's lackadaisical business model that strips it of any legitimate rights in the word "augment" and of any claim of good-faith registration of augment.ai. Such an ad-hoc business model, lacking in any respect for third party trademark rights, speaks much more to the Respondent's lack of legitimate rights and its bad faith

registration of augment.ai than any specific intent it may or may not have had in relation to a single one of the multitudes of domains that it chose to register specifically because of their connection to the field of AI". That submission is completely at odds with Respondent having successfully defended five previous UDRP complaints involving is its business model of registering dictionary words of likely general application.

 

Nothing in the supplemental submission would alter the Panel's conclusions had it been admitted.

 

Because the Complainant's supplemental submission was not admitted, the Panel accordingly declines to admit the Respondent's provisional reply.

 

SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS

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

Complainant asserts rights in the AUGMENT trademark through its United States trade mark registrations. There is no dispute about this issue. Based on this information, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AUGMENT trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <augment.ai> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the AUGMENT mark in its entirety and only adds the ".ai" TLD. The use of an entire trademark and the addition only of a TLD is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from an asserted mark. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) ("There can be no question that Respondent's domain name <ROLLERBLADE.NET> is identical to Complainant's trademark 'Rollerblade', and this Panel so finds. It is already well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as 'net' or 'com' does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar."). The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel notes that Respondent correctly concedes that this is the case.

 

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.").

 

The Panel is by no means convinced that Complaint has established a prima facie case. The lack of any evidence as to the nature and size of Complainant's business, or any evidence as to its reputation or fame when assessed against the fact that "augment' is a dictionary word of obvious application to the field of Artificial Intelligence, and Respondent's position as a trader in domain names (who has successfully defended a number of previous UDRP cases as to domain names comprising dictionary words) all suggest that more is required than simply asserting ownership of two US trademark registrations.

 

However, even if Complainant has established such a prima facie case the Panel considers Respondent has rebutted it. Respondent is an investor who is in the business of buying and selling domain names and the disputed domain name is a dictionary word that does not target Complainant's AUGMENT trademark. It is well established that the listing of generic or descriptive domain names for general sale can be a bona fide offering under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) where the domain name is not improperly targeted at a complainant. See Young Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Xiaopeng Zhou, D2024-1699 ("Dealing in domain names in the secondary market is a legitimate trading activity.")

 

Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of registering dictionary words of obvious relevance to the field of Artificial Intelligence, as domain names in the ".ai" TLD (see list above). 

 

The purchasing and sale of generic or descriptive domain names is a bona fide offering under the Policy so long as infringing or cybersquatting intent is not evident. Under such circumstances, an investor is entitled to set whatever price it likes for its offerings. Here, there is significant evidence that the word "augment" is a dictionary word used by many persons without any connection to Complainant's trademark. Respondent's pattern of owning other similar dictionary word based domains (see above) is also a mitigating factor as is its success in defeating a number of past UDRP claims against it. See, e.g., Abnormal Security Corporation v. Narendra Ghimire, FA 2099733 (Forum July 26, 2024) (claim denied against <abnormal.ai> where "[t]he word 'abnormal' is an ordinary dictionary word in the English language and therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence of bad intention or other reason to doubt the propriety of the Respondent's conduct, it has the right to use it and hence a legitimate interest in it."). Finally, Complainant has provided no evidence as to the extent of its business, its size, reputation or fame and the Panel is not prepared to infer that Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant or its use of the term "augment". Nor is the Panel prepared to disbelieve the Respondent's claim that it had no knowledge of the Complainant when it registered the domain name. The fact that this registration occurred some two months after the Complainant filed a trade mark application is not in the Panel's opinion sufficient to throw doubt on this position.

 

For the reasons stated above, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).

 

As Complainant has failed on this the second element under the UDRP, it fails in the entire proceeding. However, in the interests of completeness, the Panel will also address the issue of bad faith.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Whether a domain name is registered and used in bad faith for purposes of the Policy may be determined by evaluating four (non-exhaustive) factors set forth in the Policy ¶ 4(b): (i) circumstances indicating that the registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the registrant's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the registrant's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant's website or location or of a product or service on the registrant's website or location. 

 

The panel does not consider that any of these criteria are satisfied. Nor are there other grounds for finding bad faith given the above list is non- exhaustive.

 

Respondent has listed the disputed domain name for sale through GoDaddy.com as a "Premium Domain" with a minimum offer price of USD $4,999,429 and Complainant asserts that this "is vastly in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs and constitutes bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(i)". The Panel disagrees. If a domain name is legitimately held the registrant can ask whatever price it likes for it. The Panel repeats what the panel said in the <clio.ai> decision (supra): "The purchasing and sale of generic or descriptive domain names is a bona fide offering under the Policy so long as infringing or cybersquatting intent is not evident. Under such circumstances, an investor is entitled to set whatever price it likes for its offerings. Here, there is significant evidence that the word "Clio" has numerous meanings and uses beyond Complainant's mark and there is nothing on the auction website that refers or relates to Complainant. Respondent's pattern of owning other descriptive marks is also a mitigating factor as is its success in defeating a number of past UDRP claims against it".

 

The Panel has considered the cases Complainant cited regarding what it described as an "offer to sell at exorbitant price". The problem with this argument is that they all involve domain names that are clearly immediately referable to the complainant in question, rather than ordinary dictionary words. So in CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Gaddoor Saidi, WIPO Case No. D2000-0243 the domain name was <cbs.org> where it was clear that CBS was a three letter acronym that was very famously associated with the complainant. In General Electric Company v. John Bakhit, WIPO Case No. D2000-0386 the domain name was general-electric.com which could only sensibly refer to the complainant. Similarly in Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Liu Ji, WIPO Case No. D2013-0150 the domain name was <swarovski-onlinesale.com> which again only sensibly refers to the complainant. Attempting to extrapolate the price asked from these types of case to suggest that asking a substantial price for a dictionary word domain name is evidence of bad faith is in the Panel's view not a relevant or helpful argument.

 

As noted in the previous section, the Panel does not conclude that Respondent knew of or targeted Complainant's AUGMENT trademark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel does not accept that the doctrine of bad faith as a result of passive holding as established in the well-known decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. is applicable here. Even if a trader offering a domain name for sale can be said to be passive holding (which the Panel doubts) the Telstra decision clearly sets out number of criteria which supported the finding of bad faith on the facts of that case , as follows:-

 

"(i) the Complainant's trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known, as evidenced by its substantial use in Australia and in other countries,

 

(ii) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name,

 

(iii) the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its true identity, by operating under a name that is not a registered business name,

 

(iv) the Respondent has actively provided, and failed to correct, false contact details, in breach of its registration agreement, and

 

(v) taking into account all of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant's rights under trademark law".

 

These factors are manifestly not present in the current case. Augment is a dictionary word and – unlike the TELSTRA mark in the above case - it is entirely possible and plausible that <augment.ai> could be legitimately used by many persons unconnected with Complainant.

 

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has neither registered nor used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Thus, the Complainant has made out the first of the three elements that it must establish but has failed to establish the second and third elements.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Paragraph 15(e) of the Policy provides that if after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. See Audacious Studios, LLC dba Sitewire v. JOSEPH NACCARATO / SITEWIRED WEB SOLUTIONS, FA 1753504 (Forum Nov. 30, 2017) ("It is trite that a complainant's mere lack of success does not of itself suffice to establish RDNH. There must be compelling evidence to support the conclusion that Complainant knew it lacked relevant trade mark rights, knew Respondent had rights or legitimate interests, or knew there was a lack of bad faith on the part of Respondent; or otherwise that the proceeding has been brought to unreasonably harass Respondent. This is a high evidential burden").

 

Further, it is not necessary for a respondent to seek a RDNH finding for a Panel to find the same. Established reasons for finding RDNH include circumstances where the complainant (i) knew it could not succeed as to any of the three elements of the Policy, (ii) clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of the facts available to it at the time of filing the complaint, (iii) unreasonably ignored policy precedent, (iv) bases a complaint on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence. The Panel considers that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") is appropriate in the present case for the following reasons. Complainant should have appreciated that a claim based on a trademark which was a dictionary word was not straightforward and as minimum required evidence of fame and reputation and that Respondent was in some way targeting or taking advantage of Complainant. No such evidence was provided. Complainant unreasonably ignored numerous previous UDRP decisions involving Respondent (see above) concerning analogous registrations of domain names using dictionary words. These prior decisions identified precisely the difficulties Complainant faced and what would need to be shown to bring a complaint which had any prospects of success. Accordingly Panel concludes this was a complaint which had no prospects of success according to facts available at the time of filing and which should not have been brought. Further, salient aspects of the complaint are based on bare allegations without any supporting evidence. For example, Complainant asserts, "Complainant filed its U.S. trademark application for AUGMENT on [application filing date], two months before the domain registration. Respondent therefore registered the domain with knowledge of Complainant's rights." [emphasis added]. The absence of any evidence to support this conclusory claim makes the complaint fatally deficient in this respect. Collectively these factors amount to RDNH.

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in a bad faith to attempt to deprive Respondent of its domain name.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <augment.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner, Chair

Claire R. Kowarsky and Gerald M. Levine, Panelists

Dated: November 8, 2025