DECISION

 

Ubiquity Global Services, Inc. v. Kyler Ferris / Year

Claim Number: FA2601002201478

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Ubiquity Global Services, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Julie M. Latsko of Royer Cooper Cohen Braunfeld LLC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Kyler Ferris / Year ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <aigentapp.com> (the "disputed domain name"), 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 Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026.

 

On January 23, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aigentapp.com> disputed 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 January 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@aigentapp.com. Also on January 27, 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 1, 2026.

 

On February 2, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, a Delaware corporation,  claims that it is the owner of registered and common-law rights in the trademark AIGENT in connection with software products and services, which it and its predecessor have consistently used in interstate commerce in the United States since 2018. Complainant asserts that it offers its services via its website, "www.ubiquity.com/company/our-technology". Specifically, Complainant's AIGENT software is a suite of AI-driven tools that provide, among other things, live call transcription, call summaries, next best activity, keyword-based threat detection, and AI-assisted quality assurance.

 

Complainant owns a trademark registration in the United States for its AIGENT trademark in connection with its software for analyzing, processing, performing, communicating, controlling, and/or managing transactions for customer service interactions, in International Class 9 (e.g., AIGENT, United States Registration No. 6,158,504, registered on September 22, 2020). Complainant also has registered trademarks in the European Union and Australia. The foregoing trademarks will hereinafter collectively be referred to as the "AIGENT Mark".

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its AIGENT Mark because it fully incorporates Complainant's AIGENT Mark followed by the generic term "app" and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". Complainant also contends that the overall impression of the disputed domain name is such that the average Internet user would assume that Respondent, the disputed domain name, and the website to which it is directed, are affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise related to Complainant.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is utilizing the disputed domain name without authorization to offer software services which compete directly with Complainant's services.

 

Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert web traffic for commercial gain and to disrupt Complainant's business by creating consumer confusion. In addition, Complainant claims that because Respondent was on notice of Complainant's AIGENT Mark, its registration of a disputed domain name incorporating the mark in connection with software services is evidence of bad faith.

 

On October 2, 2025, and December 29, 2025, Complainant's counsel sent cease-and-desist letters to Respondent, explaining that Respondent's unauthorized use of the AIGENT Mark in the disputed domain name was likely to cause public confusion and constitutes trademark infringement, unfair competition, and domain name cybersquatting. Complainant received no reply to the cease-and-desist letters, and thus, Complainant claims that the lack of response demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent rejects Complainant's contentions.

Respondent is a real estate broker and entrepreneur based in Texas, USA, who claims that the disputed domain name, registered in mid-July, 2025, was used for a real estate-specific software concept titled "Agent App" (i.e., an app for real estate agents and real estate team leaders), and Respondent claims that it did so without knowledge of Complainant or its purported trademark at the time of registration.

 

Within three weeks of registration, Respondent states that it had a live website and product page associated with the disputed domain name that related to the "Agent App" concept described above. Respondent thus contends that the rapid development of the website reflected Respondent's bona fide preparations and intent to build a legitimate site and was not to target Complainant.

 

Respondent further contends that the disputed domain name was not designed for services offered by Complainant such as call-center, customer-service, or enterprise CX operations, and was not intended to offer (and did not market) the core features emphasized in Complainant's Complaint such as call transcription, call-center quality assurance, threat detection, or customer service interaction analysis.

 

Moreover, Respondent claims that the term "aigent" is a stylized contraction of "AI agent," which is descriptive in the field of artificial intelligence. Respondent contends that it did not market the product as "AIGENT" but instead consistently used "Agent App" as the project name in a real estate context, and thus, did not use the disputed domain name as a source identifier or trademark.

 

Finally, after receiving notice of this dispute, Respondent claims that it took steps to avoid any potential confusion, including discontinuing or taking offline any prior content associated with the disputed domain name, without admitting liability or wrongdoing.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights in the AIGENT Mark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's AIGENT Mark. However, Complainant has not established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

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 disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

(3)       the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AIGENT Mark as set forth below.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the AIGENT Mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (e.g., United States Registration No. 6,158,504, registered on September 22, 2020). Complainant also has registered trademarks in the European Union and Australia.

 

Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to establish rights in a mark pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."). Since Complainant claims and shows registration of the AIGENT Mark with numerous trademark offices worldwide, the Panel finds that Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AIGENT Mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), as the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety, followed by the term "app", and then followed by the gTLD ".com".

 

Registration of a domain name that adds a term or terms to the entirety of a trademark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where a disputed domain name contains a complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive term and generic Top-Level Domain). Moreover, where the trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the addition of a term or terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 ("where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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"); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Here, Complainant maintains that Respondent is not affiliated with and has not been licensed by Complainant to use the AIGENT Mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant also contends that Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interest is further established from Respondent's use of the disputed domain name.  The Panel disagrees.

 

While Complainant has established that it owns rights in the AIGENT Mark in the United States and other jurisdictions worldwide in connection with its specific software services, such as live call transcription, call summaries, next best activity, keyword-based threat detection, and AI-assisted quality assurance, the question before the Panel is how broad are those rights, since Respondent's use is for a different purpose:  an AI app for real estate agents. As Respondent asserts in its Response, the term "aigent" is generic. A cursory Google search of the term reveals many uses of the term "aigent" by many different entities. Thus, the Panel concludes that while "aigent" is not per se a dictionary term, it is a coined term combining the term "ai" with "agent" and is commonly used by many entities in the current AI space. As long as the registrant of a disputed domain name does not use the term to target a third party's trademark rights, the term may be used with impunity.

 

In sum, the Panel finds that Respondent has established that it has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. First, Respondent set up a website using the disputed domain name within 3 weeks of registering the disputed domain name, demonstrating that Respondent made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.  See Policy paragraph 4(c)(1). Second, Respondent argues that the term "aigent" is not uniquely associated with Complainant since it is a generic term, plus the services Respondent provides does not compete with those of Complainant.  Third, the Panel accepts Respondent's statements that it did not register or use the disputed domain name to take advantage of and target the trademark rights of Complainant. Respondent claims, and the Panel finds credible, the statement that Respondent had never heard of Complainant or its AIGENT Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Lastly, Respondent states that after receiving notice of this dispute, it took steps to avoid any potential confusion, including discontinuing or taking offline any prior content associated with the disputed domain name.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established the second element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the Panel's finding as to the second element, the Panel does not need to address the third element of registration and use in bad faith in respect of the disputed domain name. The Panel, however, reiterates that Complainant not only did not establish with evidence that its mark is unique and distinctive, but failed to provide any evidence establishing or suggesting that Respondent more likely than not registered the disputed domain name to target and trade off of Complainant's AIGENT Mark, as opposed to registering and using a domain name based on a common coined term used by third parties and not exclusive to Complainant.

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <aigentapp.com> disputed domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

Lynda M. Braun, Panelist

Dated: February 17, 2026