DECISION

 

Sesame AI, Inc. v. Jingyi Huang

Claim Number: FA2512002196719

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sesame AI, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Fabricio Vayra of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Jingyi Huang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sesame-ai.pro>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 29, 2025; Forum received payment on December 29, 2025.

 

On December 30, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sesame-ai.pro> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 December 31, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 20, 2026 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@sesame-ai.pro. Also on December 31, 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 January 21, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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: PRIOR UDRP PROCEEDING

The instant case is a refiling of Sesame AI, Inc. v. Jingyi Huang, FA 2177996 (Forum Oct. 3, 2025) ("Jingyi Huang I") to the extent that the parties and the at-issue domain name are the same in both cases. In Jingyi Huang I relief was denied as its panel found that complainant did not establish enforceable trademark rights. There, the operative panel found that Complainant did not present evidence of a trademark registration and Complainant's complaint thus failed.

 

Complainants are not expressly precluded from again filing a complaint against the same respondent in respect of the same domain name notwithstanding a prior Panel's disposition, but may and should per Rule 15(a) apply established legal principles or doctrines such as res judicata to determine whether or not to accept a particular refiling. By failing to respond Respondent waived any claims of res judicata which is generally considered an affirmative defense. On the other hand, Complainant asserts that its newly acquired trademark registration for SESAME and for SESAME AI is material evidence which was not reasonably foreseeable or known at the time of the dispute and this fact enables another filing to be considered. Respondent failed to respond to this claim as well since no response was filed.

 

Considering the foregoing, the Panel finds that the prior decision in Jingyi Huang I effectively dismissed the complaint in Jingyi Huang I without prejudice to Complainant's ability to refile. Therefore, the Panel will consider the instant Complainant de novo. See BOVIVE LTD v. Mylon Hilderman / Erin Leskovar / Alex Muller, FA 2154299 (Forum Jun. 16, 2025) (initially filed case was permitted to be refiled since the initial case was dismissed without prejudice)

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

<sesame-ai.pro> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks. Complainant Sesame AI is an artificial intelligence company founded by well-known, repeat technology entrepreneurs. The founders are high-profile and known for success. Sesame AI exited stealth on February 27, 2025, when they activated their website at www.sesame.com. Since exiting stealth, Complainant has previewed two of its products, a conversational artificial intelligence ("AI") companion and accompanying eyewear. Immediately after exiting stealth, Sesame AI's conversational AI companion amassed global interest as evidenced by countless news articles, blogs, and unfortunately, imitation websites attempting to trade off the goodwill Complainant had created in its inherently distinctive SESAME and SESAME AI trademarks.

 

Complainant now owns two trademark registrations for its SESAME marks (in the UK and Switzerland) and several pending applications, along with the common law rights it created in its inherently distinctive SESAME trademarks soon after launching the brand and services on February 27, 2025.

 

Under long-settled precedent, common law rights are a recognized basis for establishing trademark rights in a UDRP proceeding. Common law trademark rights exist when a party proves that there is enough goodwill and reputation in and to a name and sufficient association of the same with the party itself, no matter how strong or weak those trademark rights may be. The fact that a respondent has targeted a complainant's mark – as is the case here – also supports a complainant's assertion that its mark has achieved significance as a source identifier.

 

By the time Respondent registered the at-issue domain name, Complainant's SESAME and SESAME AI marks had become a source identifier through associated reputation and goodwill, and in connection with Complainant's well-known offerings. Complainant's voice assistants are named Miles and Maya. Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name after Complainant's launch of its highly distinctive marks and software, Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name with a website that expressly referenced Complainant and its offerings and used and continues to use the same Miles and Maya names, and Respondent's sale of identical and competing AI software, all demonstrate Respondent's awareness of Complainant's rights, and Respondent's intention to profit in bad faith off the consumer confusion created by the unauthorized use of the SESAME and SESAME AI marks.

 

As evidenced by the content on his infringing website, Respondent clearly knew about Complainant and its SESAME trademarks, website and AI software and services when Respondent registered the domain name "sesame-ai.pro". Respondent is profiting in bad faith off Sesame AI's Complainant's goodwill and global recognition by fraudulently holding himself out as Sesame AI with near-identical content on a near-identical domain. There are multiple examples of consumer confusion and complaints regarding Respondent's fraudulent and deceptive activities, i.e., consumers that purchased Respondent's software thinking they were purchasing software from Complainants.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interest in <sesame-ai.pro>. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the at-issue domain name. Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Sesame Marks, nor to register or use the domain name <sesame-ai.pro>. Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <sesame-ai.pro> creates a false impression of association with Complainant that's only purpose for Respondent's registration of the domain name is to profit off Complainant's trademarks and goodwill and confuse consumers that believe falsely they are using Complainant's software and services. Respondent's website includes sponsored ads for AI software that generate revenue for Respondent, and a link to www.bloodmoney.click which Respondent owns or receives commissions for directing traffic to that website. Emails to Sesame AI and online posts demonstrate consumer confusion and complaints where people have purchased Respondent's software believing that they were purchasing Sesame AI's software.

 

A few days before filing the complaint the at-issue domain name began immediately, redirecting web traffic to third-party website where a executable file began downloading without user interaction or consent. Respondent's intent is made clear, to drive traffic to the imitation website to then execute malicious software for nefarious reasons The <www.sesame-ai.pro> site has reverted to merely imitating Complainant's legitimate site, but the illegitimate purposes remain.

 

Respondent Registered and Used <sesame-ai.pro> in Bad Faith. Respondent registered the domain <sesame-ai.pro> on March 17, 2025, several weeks after Sesame AI had launched its software and services and created common law trademarks and goodwill in its inherently distinctive SESAME trademarks. Respondent learned of Complainant's software and trademarks from the public comments and press coverage of Sesame AI's new, groundbreaking AI software. Respondent clearly knew of Complainant's trademarks and fame when he registered the domain name. Respondents' infringing website actually referred to Complainant and its trademarks, website and software! Notably, in Jingyi Huang I, Respondent filed a response admitting that he sourced content from, and referenced, Sesame AI and its SESAME software on his infringing website.

 

By making unauthorized use of Sesame AI's name and trademarks to sell identical and competing software, Respondent's actions are a prototypical example of bad faith cybersquatting.

 

It would not be possible for Respondent to register the infringing domain name and create his infringing website if he did not already have actual knowledge of Sesame AI's prior use of the SESAME marks for AI software.

 

Respondent is successfully using the infringing domain name and website to confuse consumers that believe they are using Sesame AI's software. Respondent also incorporates sponsored ads on the infringing website to generate revenue from confused consumers that may think they are visiting Sesame AI's website. Moreover, Respondent's redirecting web traffic to third-party websites and involuntary download of executable files is a clear attempt to use the disputed domain in bad faith.

 

In addition, Respondent's website functionality prior to the first UDRP, such as the button labelled "Try Sesame AI" and the "Start Conversation" button, linked and redirected to or utilized features of Complainant's actual website <www.sesame.com>. More technically, Respondent used Sesame AI's application programming interface available at <app.sesame.com> to communicate with Sesame AI's actual artificial intelligence models. This is an attempt to further confuse visitors to the site as to the source of the at-issue domain name's website or otherwise further wrongfully associate the site with Sesame AI. This is yet another demonstration of intent to establish market confusion and is an indication of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the SESAME and SESAME AI mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Complainant's rights existed prior to Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to divert internet traffic intended for Complainant to Respondent's chosen web presence and to download malicious software.

 

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 at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant's registration of SESAME and/or SESAME AI with a governmental authority is sufficient to establish rights in a mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Axle Logistics, LLC v. Michael Chamvers, FA 2162709 (Forum July 24, 2025) ("It is well established by decisions under [the] Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights")

 

Respondent's domain name contains Complainant's SESAME and SESAME AI marks followed by the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".pro" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's SESAME and SESAME AI trademarks and Respondent's at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from either of Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <sesame-ai.pro> domain name is confusingly similar to both Complainant's SESAME and SESAME AI trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018)("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Complainant indicates that it has never authorized Respondent to use its trademark in a domain name and there no evidence of Respondent having any trademark rights in SESAME or SESAME AI which might be superior to those of Complainant. As discussed below, the Panel also finds that there are no Paragraph 4(c) circumstances which, notwithstanding Complainant's prima facie showing, might otherwise demonstrate that Respondent has rights or interests in the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name ultimately leads to identifying the registrant of <sesame-ai.pro> as "Jingyi Huang" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise shows that Respondent is commonly known by the <sesame-ai.pro> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses its confusingly similar <sesame-ai.pro> domain name to feign an affiliation with Complainant and thereby drive internet traffic to its website or elsewhere. There, Respondent promotes software conceptually similar to Complainant's software and attempts to distribute malware. Respondent's use of <sesame-ai.pro> in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also, Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) (finding that a respondent's use of a disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses "failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <sesame-ai.pro>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name to address a website that lifts content from Complainant's genuine website and references software described like Complainant's offering under its SESAME marks. Respondent offers its software for third-party consumption. Respondent may in other ways use the domain name to divert traffic from Complainant to the at-issue domain name to ultimately benefit Respondent. Respondent's use of <sesame-ai.pro> is thus disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to deceptively attract internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's <sesame-ai.pro> domain name and <sesame-ai.pro> website. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) ("Respondent is appropriating Complainant's mark to divert Complainant's customers to Respondent's competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (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).")

 

Additionally, at times browsing to the domain name may result in malware being automatically downloaded to internet consumers. This use of the domain name likewise demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <sesame-ai.pro>. See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com, FA 1621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) ("In addition, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users' devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SESAME and SESAME AI marks when it registered <sesame-ai.pro> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the marks' notoriety, given Respondent's registration of <sesame-ai.pro> subsequent to Complainant's launch of its AI related SESAME AI software, and given Respondent's references from Complainant's genuine website on Respondent's <sesame-ai.pro> website. Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's rights in SESAME and/or SESAME AI further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name)

 

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 <sesame-ai.pro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: January 21, 2026