DECISION

 

Thinking Machines Lab Inc. v. Hong Fang Liu

Claim Number: FA2509002179065

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Thinking Machines Lab Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Hong Fang Liu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thinkmachlab.com>, registered with Cloud Yuqu LLC.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 25, 2025; Forum received payment on September 25, 2025.

 

On September 26, 2025, Cloud Yuqu LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thinkmachlab.com> domain name is registered with Cloud Yuqu LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloud Yuqu LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloud Yuqu 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 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 20, 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@thinkmachlab.com. Also on September 29, 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.

 

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

 

On October 21, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement for the domain name is written in Chinese.  Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case.  

 

Rule 10 provides:

 

General Powers of the Panel

(a) The Panel shall conduct the administrative proceeding in such manner as it considers appropriate in accordance with the Policy and these Rules.

(b) In all cases, the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

(c) The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. It may, at the request of a Party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.

(d) The Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.

 

Complainant filed the Complaint in English and has petitioned the Panel to adopt English as the language of the proceeding. It submits that Respondent can understand and communicate in English because the resolving website is entirely in English.

 

The Panel finds that procedural fairness favours Complainant. The Panel accepts the submission that Respondent can read and understand English. There has been no communication from Respondent objecting that it could not understand the Complaint. There has been no Response at all. As discussed hereunder, Respondent appears to have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and there is a compelling argument that the domain name was registered in bad faith and then used in bad faith. The Panel finds that it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language to expedite the Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in THINKING MACHINES and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the Decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant uses the trademark THINKING MACHINES in connection with its business as an artificial intelligence (AI) research and innovation company;

2.       the trademark, THINKING MACHINES, is registered in the name of Complainant with the Benelux Trademarks Office as Reg. No. 1521640, registered March 28, 2025;

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on July 10, 2025, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

4.       the disputed domain name resolves to a rudimentary website which states: "Our company specializes in delivering high-quality software solutions tailored to meet the unique needs of our clients. We perform a variety of services, including computer software design and analysis, modifications of custom software, and training in the use of custom software."

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant has filed a number of trademark applications for THINKING MACHINES, but it is only the application in the Benelux, referred to above, which is presently registered. Ordinarily that would be the end of the matter since the trademark is registered with a (in this case) regional trademark authority.  However, the Panel notes that the Benelux Trademarks Office operates a system of registration by deposit, without examination. Whether that should matter is only put into question by paragraph 1.2.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (Third Edition) which states that:

 

"Complainants relying on trademark registrations listed solely on the USPTO Supplemental Register are expected to show secondary meaning in order to establish trademark rights under the Policy because under US law a supplemental registration does not by itself provide evidence of distinctiveness to support trademark rights."

 

The Benelux Trademarks Office is not the only authority which operates a deposit system, nor the only one which does not examine for so-called absolute grounds of rejection of a mark. Although the Panel appreciates the thinking behind paragraph 1.2.2, there are many trademark systems where registration is not a promise of the distinctiveness of the mark. However, given that the matter is not contested and that countless UDRP decisions have found – without qualification – that registration is per se proof of trademark rights, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in THINKING MACHINES by reason of the Benelux registration.

 

Complainant advocates a holistic appraisal of whether the disputed domain name and the trademark are confusing similar. The Panel agrees, subject to the caveat that there is an old and inconclusively debated question as to how the reputation of a mark should influence the comparison to be made under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. One side of that debate would argue that public awareness of the trademark, still less awareness of Complainant's trading name, should not influence the comparison.

 

In this case, the Panel finds that the terms are confusingly similar as a matter of first principles. For the purpose of comparison, the gTLD, ".com", can be disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the 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 finds it more likely than not that Internet users would then decode "thinkmachlab" as "think mach(ine) lab(oratories)". The word "lab(oraties)" would be treated as descriptive or generic and "think machine" would assume the position as the dominant feature of the domain name. It, in turn, is essentially identical to the trademark.

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states 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 rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use 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) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

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

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The name of Respondent was shielded by a privacy service. Forum issued a Deficiency Notice and the Amended Complaint then named Hong Fang Liu as Respondent. Nothing in the evidence indicates that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name (see, for example, Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply").

 

There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights. Complainant states that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark and the Panel accepts that statement. The Complaint states that the domain name "is being used to divert web traffic and lure enthusiasts of Complainant's offering to a website that is unrelated to Complainant's offerings."  Whether the resolving website promotes similar or unrelated goods/services is less important than the fact that by use of the trademark on the website, together with an address in the USA which was, until recently, Complainant's address, Respondent attempted to create confusion amongst Internet users.  Clearly such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.

 

A prima facie case has been made.  The onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating rights or interests.  Absent a Response, the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

The Panel finds that the evidence supports the application of paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. Without a Response, the Panel can make the reasonable inference that the domain name was created to draw Internet traffic away from Complainant and to Respondent's website which promotes its own goods/services, or exists for a more nefarious purpose.  In any event, the Panel finds that the purpose is financial gain on one form or another, the exact mode being unimportant.

 

In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA 1800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because "[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <thinkmachlab.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  October 21, 2025