DECISION
HCL CORPORATION PRIVATE LTD. aka HCL CORPORATION LIMITED, HCL AMERICA, INC., and HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. AMITABH VERMA
Claim Number: FA2601002200186
PARTIES
Complainants are HCL CORPORATION PRIVATE LTD. aka HCL CORPORATION LIMITED, HCL AMERICA, INC. and HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ("Complainants"), represented by Hope V. Shovein of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is AMITABH VERMA ("Respondent"), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hcltech.ai>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certify 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.
Richard W. Hill and Professor David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainants submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 16, 2026. Forum received payment on January 16, 2026.
On January 18, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hcltech.ai> 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 January 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 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@hcltech.ai. Also on January 20, 2026, 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on February 9, 2026.
On February 13, 2026, Respondent submitted to Forum a Request for Leave to Submit a Supplemental Exhibit, copied to Complainants' representatives in accordance with Forum's Supplemental Rule 7.
On February 16, 2026, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard W. Hill and Professor David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Alan L. Limbury as Chair.
On February 16, 2026, Complainant submitted to Forum an Additional Submission.
On February 18, 2026, Respondent submitted to Forum a Response to Complainant's Additional Submission of February 16, 2026.
On February 19, 2026, Complainant submitted to Forum a Reply to Respondent's Response of February 18, 2026.
On February 19, 2026, Respondent submitted to Forum a Response to Complainant's Additional Submission of February 19, 2026.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainants request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to "Complainant".
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
In the instant proceedings, there are three Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a domain name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."
Complainants are HCL CORPORATION PRIVATE LTD. aka HCL CORPORATION LIMITED of New Delhi, India, HCL AMERICA, INC. of California, United States, and HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. of New Delhi, India. The Complaint refers to all three as "HCL" or "Complainant".
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
Exhibits 4 and 5 to the Complaint show HCL Corporation Private Ltd. aka HCL Corporation Limited to be the registrant of several Indian HCL word and stylized marks; HCL Technologies Ltd. to be the registrant of United States and Indian HCLTECH marks; and HCL America, Inc. to be the registrant of the United States stylized mark HCL.
The Panel finds these circumstances to constitute a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the <hcltech.ai> domain name listed in the Complaint.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainants
"Complainant" is a global technology company founded in 1976 as one of India's original IT garage start-ups. Complainant is known by and does business as "HCL" and "HCLTech". Complainant is ranked 764 on the Forbes 2024 Global 2000 list; 554 on Forbes 2024 Worlds' Best Employers list; and 262 on the Brand Finance list of the world's top 500 most valuable brands in 2025. It is clear that HCL is a valuable and well-known global brand.
Complainant uses its <hcl.com>, <hcltech.com> and <hcltechnologies.com> domain names (all first created in the 1990s) to provide information about Complainant and sell software products and services under its HCL and HCLTECH trademarks.
Complainant's rights in the HCL and HCLTECH marks, together with Complainant's common law rights in the same, are referred to herein as the "HCL Marks".
Complainant has expended considerable time, effort and expense in advertising and promoting the HCL Marks, and the goods and services associated with it, throughout India, the United States, South America, and around the world, with the result that the purchasing public has come to know and recognize goods and services of Complainant by the HCL Marks. Complainant has exceedingly valuable goodwill established in the HCL Marks.
The <hcltech.ai> domain name was registered on March 30, 2021, after Complainant had already established its rights in the HCL Marks. The domain name fully incorporates Complainant's identical HCL and HCLTECH Marks and is therefore confusingly similar to the HCL Marks. The domain name is identical to the HCL and HCLTECH Marks and differs only in relation to the ".ai" gTLD.
Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the <hcltech.ai> domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its HCL Marks and Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by the domain name.
Upon accessing <hcltech.ai>, Internet users are directed to a parked landing page, displaying "Relevant Searches" labeled "JOB SEARCH NEAR ME," "JOB REMOTE JOBS," and "ANY JOB HIRING NOW." These links falsely suggest an affiliation with Complainant, yet none lead to Complainant's official website or authorized customer support channels. Instead, they divert users to third-party or fraudulent destinations, exacerbating consumer confusion and reinforcing the misleading association created by the domain name itself.
Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, it resolves to a parked page populated with pay-per-click style links. Such use is designed solely to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the HCL Marks and to divert Internet users for Respondent's commercial gain, which does not constitute a legitimate or fair use under the Policy.
Upon information and belief, Respondent registered the <hcltech.ai> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HCL Marks. Respondent has engaged in conduct that constitutes bad faith by intentionally and willfully misrepresenting to the Registrar that the registration of the domain name did not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third parties.
Respondent uses the domain name and Complainant's intellectual property, including the HCL Marks, to impersonate Complainant, directing consumers to click unrelated third-party links for profit without authorization by Complainant.
Respondent's website disrupts Complainant's business as Respondent registered the domain name to divert users away from Complainant's legitimate business channels.
Respondent's bad faith is further evidenced under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). By using the domain name to host a parked landing page featuring links and search terms that appear related to Complainant, Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.
Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HCL Marks when Respondent registered the <hcltech.ai> domain name. This is evident given the HCL brand's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the trademark laden domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer services similar to Complainant's offering.
Respondent's bad faith is further evidenced by the Privacy Policy posted on Respondent's Website, which acknowledges the collection and processing of visitor data and the use of third-party advertising and monetization services. The existence of such a policy demonstrates that Respondent is intentionally operating the website as a commercial enterprise designed to monetize Internet traffic diverted through a confusingly similar domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent submits that the Complaint fails on all three elements of Policy ¶ 4(a) and constitutes a textbook case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
The undisputed facts show that Respondent registered <hcltech.ai> on March 30, 2021; Complainant filed for HCLTECH trademarks only in November 2022, approximately 19 months later; Respondent could not have targeted a trademark that did not exist; and the Complaint relies on retroactive trademark expansion, speculative bad faith, and unsupported monetization allegations.
While Complainant owns registrations for HCL, it did not own trademark rights in HCLTECH at the time the domain name was registered. Ownership of the HCL trademark does not confer rights in HCLTECH.
Because HCLTECH was not a protectable trademark in March 2021, bad faith registration is legally impossible, and the Complaint collapses under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Respondent has never offered the domain name for sale to Complainant; used the domain name to impersonate Complainant; engaged in phishing, diversion, or deceptive conduct; used the domain name to offer competing goods or services.
The Complaint provides no evidence of targeting, intent, or abuse. Mere ownership of a domain name corresponding to a later-filed trademark does not constitute bad faith.
Any temporary landing page was automatically generated by the registrar; not configured, curated, or monetized by Respondent; and produced no demonstrated revenue to Respondent. Forum panels consistently hold that passive or registrar-controlled parking, without targeting or manipulation by the registrant, does not establish bad faith.
Respondent did not design the domain name to target Complainant, did not include references to Complainant, and did not use the domain name to create confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. There is no evidence that any Internet user was intentionally misled or diverted. Allegations of diversion under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) require proof of intentional targeting, which is entirely absent here.
Respondent lawfully registered a domain name consisting of a descriptive composite term in the ".ai" gTLD, well before Complainant adopted or sought protection for HCLTECH in AI-related branding. Respondent did not impersonate Complainant; did not offer competing services; did not solicit Complainant; and did not attempt to sell the domain name to Complainant. These facts establish a legitimate interest and negate Complaint's assertions under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The AI context confirms opportunistic filing by Complainant. The timing is critical: March 2021 – Respondent registers Hcltech.AI; November 2022 – AI boom post-ChatGPT launch + Complainant files HCLTECH trademarks in the same month. Complainant is now attempting to retroactively capture a valuable AI-related domain it did not secure earlier, using the UDRP as a shortcut. The sequence of events shows that Respondent's registration was in good faith and unrelated to any AI marketing opportunity. The Complaint is thus an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Respondent respectfully requests that the Panel DENY the Complaint in its entirety and issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking under Rule 15(e).
C. Additional Submissions
Forum's Supplemental Rule 7 provides: "It is within the discretion of the Panel to accept or consider additional unsolicited submission(s)".
The Panel accepts Complainant's Additional Submission of February 16, 2026, insofar as it contests Respondent's Reverse Domain Name Hijacking allegation. However, as noted below, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider it.
As in Universal Music Group N.V. and Universal City Studios LLC v. JT U Animation / U Animation, FA 2085375 (Forum May 20, 2024), the Panel has exercised its discretion not to have regard to any of the parties' other unsolicited Additional Submissions, which simply reargue the same points, so there is no reason to accept them.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainants have shown that they have rights in numerous trademarks registered in International Classes 9, 35 and 42 for e.g., website development software in Class 9, including:
Indian Reg. No. 1183582 for the mark HCL, registered by HCL Corporation Private Ltd. upon application dated March 17, 2003;
USPTO Reg. No. 3,2581,113 for the mark HCL, registered by HCL America, Inc. on July 3, 2007;
USPTO Reg. No. 6,921,665 for the mark HCL, registered by HCL Technologies Ltd. on December 13, 2022, upon application filed on September 20, 2021;
USPTO Reg. No. 7,895,870 for the mark HCLTECH, registered by HCL Technologies Ltd. on August 19, 2025;
Indian Reg. No. 5671376 for the mark HCLTECH, filed by HCL Technologies Ltd. on November 6, 2022.
The Panel finds Respondent's <hcltech.ai> domain name to be identical to Complainants' HCLTECH mark and confusingly similar to Complainants' HCL mark, only differing from the latter by the addition of the abbreviation "tech" which is insufficient to distinguish that domain name from Complainants' HCL mark. The ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. 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 Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainants have 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 a domain name 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 name or a name corresponding to the domain name 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 name, 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 name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence that Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the <hcltech.ai> domain name, which was registered on March 30, 2021, many years after the registrations of Complainants' HCL mark and their <hcl.cm>, <hcltech.com> and <hcltechnologies.com> domain names. It resolves to a Registrar-parked webpage displaying pay-per-click links unrelated to Complainants' business: "Job Search Near Me", "Job Remote Jobs" and "Any Job Hiring Now". It is well established that the domain name registrant is responsible for PPC links, whether or not the registrant was aware of them. See Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. GRUPO SA Ltd Co / Grupo S.A. Ltd Co., FA 1985605 (Forum March 30, 2022) ("Panels have found that respondents are ultimately responsible for the content of their resolving webpages.").
These circumstances, together with Complainants' assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the <hcltech.ai> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
As noted above, Respondent says inter alia that he lawfully registered a domain name consisting of a descriptive composite term in the ".ai" gTLD, well before Complainant adopted or sought protection for HCLTECH in AI-related branding. Respondent did not impersonate Complainant; did not offer competing services; did not solicit Complainant; and did not attempt to sell the domain name to Complainant. According to Respondent, these facts establish a legitimate interest and negate Complaint's assertions under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). However, for the reasons given below, the Panel does not agree.
The relevant date to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name is the date of notice to Respondent of the dispute, in this case the filing date of the Complaint, January 16, 2026. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.1) at par. 2.11.
Although HCL is, as Respondent contends, an abbreviation for many terms unrelated to Complainants' business, the Panel finds that the <hcltech.ai> domain name, comprising Complainants' HCLTECH mark, adding the abbreviation "tech" and the ".ai" gTLD to the letters "HCL", evokes Complainants' technology-related business and falsely represents to Internet users that the domain name belongs to or is otherwise associated with Complainants. The Panel also finds that this was so when Respondent registered the domain name, prior to Complainants' acquisition of rights in the HCLTECH mark. Respondent does not give any explanation for his choice of the letters "hcl" in the disputed domain name; in particular, he does not allege – much less provide evidence to show – that he is a domain name investor who systematically registers domain names containing three letters and a generic/descriptive term.
As already noted, the resolving website displays advertising hyperlinks for products and services that are not related to Complainant. Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Constellation Wines U.S., Inc. v. Tex. Int'l Prop. Assocs., FA 948436 (Forum May 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) by using the disputed domain name to operate a website featuring links to goods and services unrelated to the complainant). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainants have established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The learned dissent below is largely based on the premise that bad faith cannot be found in the absence of targeting. In the instant case, the Panel infers, as explained below, that, on the preponderance of the evidence, Respondent did know of Complainant's activities. The majority is of the view that the instant case can be distinguished from the numerous cases cited in the dissent, because the facts are not the same.
Be that as it may, one member of the majority (Richard Hill) is not convinced that targeting is always required to find bad faith under the Policy. For sure targeting is explicitly required under paragraphs 4(b)(i), (ii), and (iii). But not under paragraph 4(b)(iv), nor under the chapeau 4(b). Paragraphs 93-94 of the April 30, 1999 Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process (which is the closest we have to a legislative history of the UDRP) make it clear that "intent" is not relevant in the context of abusive registrations. That is, a registration may be abusive even if the registrant did not intend it to be so. And bad faith under the Policy can be found even if there is no evidence of targeting, see AbbVie Inc. v. Musonda Chalwe, FA 2085483 (Forum March 19, 2024).
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 a 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.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel majority that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants, their HCL mark and their <hcltech.com> domain name when Respondent registered the <hcltech.ai> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website to which the domain name resolves, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants' HCL mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent's previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites); see also PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant's business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Dovetail Ventures, LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA 1625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks, unrelated to the complainant's business, through which the respondent presumably commercially gained).
Complainants have established this element.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Since Complainant has succeeded in this case, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider this issue.
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 <hcltech.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant HCL Technologies Ltd.
Alan L. Limbury, Chair
Richard W. Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 23, 2026
DISSENTING OPINION
I respectfully dissent. In my view, Complainant has failed to demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, as required by paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
For a domain name to have been registered in bad faith under the Policy, the Respondent must have registered the domain name with the Complainant or its mark in mind.
It is widely accepted among panels under the Policy that, for bad faith registration and use to be made out, a degree of targeting of the Complainant or its mark by the Respondent must be evident from the record, or at the very least that there must be sufficient grounds to infer that the Respondent had the Complainant or its trademark in mind when the disputed domain name was created.
Franki Global Inc. v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Golden Dream, The Stay Gold Co / Samantha Jurashka, D2021-2901 (WIPO Dec. 13, 2021). Accord Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. v. Protected Domain Services - Customer ID: NCR-813584 / Daniel Wang, D2011-0435 (WIPO May 10, 2011) (requiring "sufficient evidence that the Respondent had the intent in some manner deliberately to 'target' the Complainant and its marks or goodwill in order to capitalize on them); Mountain Top (Denmark) ApS v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0133416460 / Name Redacted, Mountaintop Idea Studio, D2020-1577 (WIPO Sept. 1, 2020) (requiring proof that domain name "was registered with the complainant and/or its trade mark in mind").
The onus is on the Complainant to prove its case and this includes providing evidence of the Respondent's intention to target a specific Complainant rather than anyone who may have a trademark for the corresponding or similar term. . . . In the absence of evidence that Respondent registered the Domain Name specifically because of the Complainant or that its value was derived exclusively from Complainant's mark, the Complaint must fail. It is in general essential to a finding of bad faith registration and use under the Policy, that a Respondent must have targeted Complainant or its trade mark, or at least had Complainant in mind, when it registered the disputed domain name. . . .
Absent direct proof that a domain name which has a multitude of meanings and uses, was registered solely for the purpose of profiting from a specific complainant's trademark rights, there can be no finding of bad faith.
UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.3 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/.
Complainant's case thus rests on whether there is sufficient evidence to support an inference that Respondent had Complainant's HCL or HCLTECH mark in mind when he registered the disputed domain name.
Based upon the evidence before the Panel, I do not find any basis for inferring that Respondent was aware of Complainant's HCLTECH mark. Complainant has not shown that it was actively using HCLTECH in March 2021, when Respondent registered the corresponding domain name, nor that the HCLTECH mark even existed at that time. Complainant owned the domain name <hcltech.com>, but it is unclear whether the domain name was actually in use. The only evidence to that effect in the Complaint is a reference in an exhibit to the status of that domain name as "Registered And No Website" as of March 27, 2025. (Reference to the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine suggests that Complainant did have a website at <hcltech.com> in 2021, but no such claim appears in the Complaint.)
The HCLTECH trademark registrations referenced in the Complaint, including the underlying applications, all post-date Respondent's domain name registration. Furthermore, the United States trademark application was filed in 2022 under basis 1(b) (intent to use), indicating that Complainant had not yet begun using the mark. See, e.g., Neal & Massy Holdings Ltd. v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (treating an intent-to-use application as an admission that the applicant is not currently using the mark in commerce).
The domain name also incorporates Complainant's HCL mark, but there is no evidence properly before the Panel that Respondent knew of that mark, either. Where the mark is a three-letter combination not exclusively associated with the Complainant, panels are rightfully reluctant to infer knowledge and targeting. See, e.g., Financial Information Network, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Minml Minml, LLC, FA 2188754 (Forum Jan. 28, 2026) (finding no evidence that respondent's registration of <fin.com> was targeted at complainant or its FIN mark); Sierra Remote Observatories, LLC v. Jon Berg, D2025-1957 (WIPO Aug. 9, 2025) (rejecting inference that respondent registered <sro.com> with complainant's SRO mark in mind, despite respondent's "curious" silence regarding knowledge of the mark); HCL Corp. Private Ltd. aka HCL Corp. Ltd., HCL America, Inc., & HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Hugo Contreras, FA 2033005 (Forum Apr. 12, 2023) (declining to infer targeting of HCL mark by registrant of <hclsoftware.com>); Australian Broadcasting Corp. v. Hussein Elburai, D2019-1181 (WIPO July 11, 2019) (rejecting inference that respondent registered <abc.net> with complainant's ABC mark in mind); PCO AG v. Register4Less Privacy Advocate, 3501256 Canada, Inc., D2017-1778 (WIPO Oct. 30, 2017) (rejecting inference that respondent registered <pco.com> with complainant's PCO mark in mind); ETH Zürich (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich) v. Andre Luiz Silva Rocha, Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S/A, D2016-0444 (WIPO Apr. 18, 2016) (rejecting inference that respondent registered <eth.com> with complainant's ETH mark in mind, despite respondent's failure to offer alternative explanation); Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena S.p.A v. Charles Kirkpatrick, D2008-0260 (WIPO Apr. 14, 2008) (rejecting inference that respondent registered <mps.mobi> with complainant's MPS mark in mind); Diknah, S.L. v. WebQuest.com Inc., D2005-0573 (WIPO Aug. 25, 2005) (declining to infer targeting of MNG mark by registrant of <mng.com> notwithstanding international reputation and trademark registrations in various countries); Builder's Best, Inc. v. Yoshiki Okada, D2004-0748 (WIPO Nov. 17, 2004) (rejecting inference that respondent registered <nnn.com> with complainant's NNN mark in mind, absent evidence that mark was known or used in respondent's country of residence); AFMA, Inc., v. Globemedia, D2001-0558 (WIPO Aug. 23, 2001) (rejecting inference that respondent registered <afm.com> with complainant's AFM mark in mind, distinguishing AFM from more famous marks such as TWA, NFL, and IBM); Kis v. Anything.com Ltd., D2000-0770 (WIPO Nov. 20, 2000) (inferring that domain name <kis.com> was selected because of its length rather than because of correspondence to KIS trademark).
Complainant is a global technology company based in India. Complainant states that it uses the HCL mark "in connection with a wide range of goods and services and has a presence across varied industry sectors," and that it "offers an integrated portfolio of products, solutions, services, and IP built around digital, IoT, cloud, automation, cybersecurity, analytics, infrastructure management and engineering services, amongst others, to help enterprises reimagine their businesses for the digital age." Complainant asserts that its marks are known and recognized by the "purchasing public." This Panelist takes that term to mean potential purchasers of the sorts of goods or services that Complainant provides, and not the general public as a whole.
Based upon the evidence before the Panel, Respondent appears to be an individual located in the United States with no obvious connections to Complainant, India, or the technology industry. I find no basis for inferring that such an individual would have been aware of Complainant or its HCL mark. See, e.g., HCL Corp. Private Ltd. aka HCL Corp. Ltd., HCL America, Inc., & HCL Technologies Ltd. v. Hugo Contreras, supra (declining to infer knowledge of global technology company's HCL mark by software developer in South America); Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena S.p.A v. Charles Kirkpatrick, supra (declining to infer United States resident's knowledge of Italian complainant's MPS mark where complainant had a minimal presence in the United States and none in respondent's state, and there was no evidence that respondent was involved in respondent's industry or had engaged in business in Italy).
Had Complainant elected to provide the Panel with evidence that Respondent was likely to have had such knowledge, I would be more open to such an inference. For example, it is possible that a quick Google search might reveal evidence of a connection between Respondent and Complainant, based upon what appears to be Respondent's own LinkedIn profile page and various third-party business directory websites. Such a search might even suggest that an individual with Respondent (or an individual with the same name, residential address, and email address) had been employed by Complainant's HCL Technologies Ltd. subsidiary for more than 15 years, first in India and later in the United States, at the time the disputed domain name was registered. Of course, Complainant could present such evidence should it elect to file a new complaint under the Policy, but presumably would be expected to demonstrate that this new evidence was not reasonably available to it when it filed the complaint in the present proceeding. See, e.g., Tiger Aesthetics Medical, LLC v. pan xin yong, FA 2140282 (Forum Feb. 26, 2025) (granting leave to refile "if Complainant can present new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to it when the instant case was filed, in particular concerning Respondent's intent in registering the disputed domain name"); Tiger Aesthetics Medical, LLC v. pan xin yon, FA 2162643 (Forum July 18, 2025) (rejecting refiled complaint absent "new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case"). See also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, supra, § 0.11 (a refiled complaint requires "new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained by the Complainant in the last proceeding . . . This is a very high threshold which should be strictly enforced in order to prevent Complainants from repeatedly bringing an unsuccessful Complaint at the expense of the Respondent.); WIPO Overview 3.1, supra, ¶ 4.18 (setting forth "highly limited circumstances" in which panels accept refiled complaints).
I conclude that Complainant has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and would deny the Complaint on that basis.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page