DECISION

 

Distributed Creation, Inc. v. Amelie Clement

Claim Number: FA2602002203747

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Distributed Creation, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jordan LaVine of Flaster Greenberg PC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Amelie Clement ("Respondent"), represented by John Berryhill, Pennsylvania, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <splice.ai>, registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA.

 

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.

 

Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 5, 2026; Forum received payment on February 5, 2026.

 

On February 5, 2026, Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <splice.ai> domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA has verified that Respondent is bound by the Ascio Technologies, Inc. Danmark - Filial af Ascio technologies, Inc. USA 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 February 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@splice.ai. Also on February 5, 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 March 2, 2026.

 

On March 3, 2026 Complainant filed a supplemental filing described as "Complainant's Reply".

 

On March 3, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

On March 4, 2026 Respondent's counsel filed an email with Forum containing observations on the Complainant's Reply and asked that this email be provided to the Panel.

 

Subsequently on March 4, 2026, Complainant's counsel filed an email with Forum stating "Complainant objects to Respondent's further submission on the grounds that the UDRP Rules do not provide any right or procedure for a sur-reply. As Respondent's counsel is undoubtedly aware, parties are normally limited to the Complaint, Response, and, where authorized, a single Reply.

Accordingly, and especially because the proposed sur-reply does not present any new evidence or arguments, Complainant respectfully requests that this unauthorized filing be stricken from the record and not forwarded to the Panel for consideration".

 

Later on March 4, 2026 Respondent's counsel filed an email with Forum stating "Concerning the assertion of what "Respondent's counsel is undoubtedly aware", perhaps the Complainant might cite to the UDRP rule or Forum supplemental which the Complainant intends by "where authorized, a single Reply". The Respondent's counsel is aware of no such authorization granted to the Complainant………. The Panel, of course, likewise does not require Respondent's help in determining that there is no rule under which the Complainant's "single reply" is "authorized", but as it has been asserted undersigned counsel is "undoubtedly aware" of it, this note is submitted to clarify that counsel is aware of no such thing, because it does not exist……."

 

The Panel will address below the admissibility of all of this material.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On the record available to the Panel the following factual matters do not appear to be in dispute and are relevant to the issues raised by each party.

 

Complainant

Complainant operates SPLICE, a cloud-based music creation platform offering a subscription-based library of royalty-free audio samples and MIDI files, rent-to-own plugin functionality, AI-assisted music tools, and related services. It describes itself as "The industry's top sample library". Complainant has used the SPLICE mark in commerce since at least October 2013 and operates its primary platform at <www.splice.com>. Complainant's business has been successful internationally and was valued at around USD 500 million in 2021. Complainant holds trademark registrations for the SPLICE mark in multiple jurisdictions, including United States Registration No. 4,732,106 (issued May 5, 2015), United Kingdom Registration No. UK00912129251 (issued 2014), European Union Registration No. 12129251 (issued 2014), Canada Registration No. TMA947696 (issued 2016), and International Registration No. 1657832.

 

Respondent

Respondent is the CEO and co-founder of splice.ai GmbH, a company registered with the Vienna Commercial Court (Firmenbuchnummer FN 474020p, Handelsgericht Wien) as a Gesellschaft mit beschraenkter Haftung (limited liability company). The company was founded by Respondent together with two co-founders, David Lechner and Jan Wagner, following Respondent's successful application in 2016 for a "Creative Pioneer" small business development grant from the Wirtschaftsagentur Wien (Vienna Business Agency). That grant, valued at EUR 55,000, was awarded to support development of a conversational gaming interface platform operating under the splice.ai name. The application itself, submitted in 2016 with a projected launch date of January 2017, used the <splice.ai> domain name as the project's contact address. The disputed domain name was registered on December 15, 2017, shortly after the grant was awarded and in the course of establishing the corporate entity and commencing development work.

 

splice.ai GmbH's website (the "splice.ai website") identifies the company's project as a "Conversational Interface Suite" (splice.CIS) designed to enable developers to integrate narrative text elements with game mechanics, and an AI engine (splice.AIM) combining human conversational input with AI-driven dialogue. The company's website carries a copyright notice of "2025 by splice.ai GmbH" (see further below). Respondent has used the disputed domain name for email correspondence with contractors and vendors and has entered into agreements in connection with the project, including a Letter of Intent with CRATR.games GmbH in December 2025. Annual accounts for splice.ai GmbH have been filed from 2017 to date and the company is confirmed to be in good standing by its accountant.

 

Prior contact between the parties

Before filing the Complaint, Complainant's counsel sent a message to Respondent via LinkedIn indicating that the client "is interested in purchasing the domain name splice.ai." Respondent did not reply.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its registered SPLICE trademark, differing only by the addition of the ".ai" ccTLD, which it argues does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark and in fact reinforces the association with Complainant's AI-enabled services. Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, asserting that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not authorised to use the SPLICE mark, and that the disputed domain name resolves to a skeletal website that has not been materially updated since 2019 and whose associated social media accounts show years of inactivity. Complainant characterises this as passive holding and describes the website as a "facade of legitimacy" and the business as a "sham".  Complainant contends that bad faith is established by the prolonged passive holding of a domain identical to its mark, the implausibility of any legitimate use, and what it terms "aggravated passive holding." Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent contends that the word SPLICE is a common English word subject to widespread concurrent use by dozens of entities worldwide (see further below), and that Complainant therefore cannot plausibly claim anything approaching exclusive or famous status in the word. Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name was registered in connection with a bona fide business project - the development of a conversational gaming AI interface under the name splice.ai - which predated any notice of this dispute by several years and was supported by a government grant of EUR 55,000. Respondent further asserts that the company splice.ai GmbH is formally registered under Austrian law, is commonly known by the disputed domain name, has conducted genuine business operations using the disputed domain name, and that this information was plainly visible on the Respondent's own website and in publicly searchable Austrian corporate registers. Respondent contends that Complainant's allegation that there was "no evidence Respondent has ever been known as Splice" was demonstrably false and made without basic due diligence. Respondent denies bad faith registration and use.

 

C. Additional Submissions

For reasons discussed below the Panel does not propose to admit any further material so it is not necessary to set out the detail of the content in question.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following facts established on the record before it.

1.       Complainant, Distributed Creation, Inc., operates the SPLICE music creation platform, holds multiple registered trademarks for SPLICE (including US Reg. No. 4,732,106, issued 2015, and EU/UK/Canada registrations), and has used the mark in commerce since at least October 2013.

2.       Complainant's business has been successful internationally. The Panel is however unable to make any finding as to how well known (if at all) it was in 2017 beyond noting it seems more likely than not that it will have been known to persons with an interest in music samples.

3.       Respondent is the CEO and co-founder of splice.ai GmbH, a limited liability company registered under Austrian law with the Vienna Commercial Court (FN 474020p) since 2017, and is the registrant of the disputed domain name <splice.ai>, which was registered on 15 December 2017.

4.       In 2016, Respondent applied for and was awarded a "Creative Pioneer" development grant of EUR 55,000 from the Wirtschaftsagentur Wien (Vienna Business Agency) to develop a conversational gaming interface platform operating under the name splice.ai; the grant application itself used the <splice.ai> domain as the project's contact address.

5.       The disputed domain name has been used for email correspondence with contractors and vendors, and the splice.ai website describes an ongoing project (splice.CIS and splice.AIM) with a named management team; annual accounts for splice.ai GmbH have been filed from 2017 to date and the company is confirmed to be in good standing.

6.       In December 2025, splice.ai GmbH entered into a Letter of Intent with CRATR.games GmbH, constituting a documented commercial relationship in connection with the project.

7.       The splice.ai website carries a copyright notice "© 2025 by splice.ai GmbH" and an Imprint link which leads to a page with full details of splice.ai GbmH's corporate status. These can be confirmed by searching official Austrian records which are available online in English.

8.       Before filing the Complaint, Complainant's counsel contacted Respondent via LinkedIn to inquire about purchasing the disputed domain name. Respondent did not reply, and the Complaint was subsequently filed.

9.       The word "splice" is a common English word in widespread concurrent commercial use; the record identifies at least fourteen US registered trademark owners of SPLICE-formative marks across various fields, and numerous third-party splice.[suffix] domain names operated by independent businesses worldwide.

10.There is no evidence on the record that Respondent had any knowledge of Complainant or its SPLICE mark at the time of registration in December 2017, or that Respondent took any steps targeting Complainant at any point.

 

DISCUSSION

Preliminary Issue – Admissibility of Supplemental Filings

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

 

There is no rule of the type suggested by Complainant that supplemental filings are limited to a Reply where authorised by the Panel.

 

In the present case the Panel declines to exercise its discretion to admit Complainant's Reply and all subsequent filings or emails. Complainant's Reply is in large measure dealing with arguments raised in the Response concerning the existence of splice.ai GmbH and the nature of its business. Those may well be issues that the Complainant did not address in the Complaint but they should not have taken it by surprise – the copyright notice on the splice.ai website and the link to the Respondent's corporate details should have alerted Complainant to the need for further enquiries before filing the Complaint. The Panel is not minded to now let Complainant add to its case after Respondent had drawn attention to these facts.  The Panel would add that it has nevertheless read all this additional material and nothing in these documents would alter the Panel's conclusions had they been admitted.

 

Substantive Issues

¶ 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."

Policy ¶ 4(a) requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

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

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant holds multiple registered trademarks for the mark SPLICE, predating the disputed domain name's registration, including United States Registration No. 4,732,106 and registrations in the United Kingdom, European Union, Canada, and through the Madrid System. Ownership of these registrations establishes Complainant's rights in the SPLICE mark for purposes of the threshold requirement under ¶ 4(a)(i). See Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022).

 

The disputed domain name <splice.ai> incorporates the SPLICE mark in its entirety, accompanied only by the ".ai" ccTLD. The ccTLD is ordinarily disregarded in the confusing similarity analysis as a technical requirement of registration. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. It accordingly follows that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent correctly concedes this is the case, though observes that many other entities also have rights in trademarks for the word "splice" or for figurative marks where the dominant element is the word "splice".

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain, after which the burden shifts to Respondent. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)). A respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) by showing that, before any notice of the dispute, it used or made 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. Alternatively, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), a respondent may show that it has been commonly known by the domain name.

 

The Panel is not at all sure that the Complainant has established a prima facie case given that SPLICE is an ordinary English word which is widely used by many different commercial organisations in differing fields (see further below). It is entirely conceivable that Respondent selected the disputed domain name in a "first come first served" system of registration for reasons unconnected with Complainant as part of the establishment of a new business, details of which (at least in outline) are apparent on the splice.ai website. However assuming, arguendo, that Complainant has established a prima facie case the Panel finds that Respondent has clearly established rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons.

First, as to use, Respondent has established demonstrable preparations to use, and actual use of, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to any notice of this dispute. The record shows that Respondent submitted a detailed business development proposal to the Wirtschaftsagentur Wien in 2016 for a conversational gaming interface platform operating under the <splice.ai> name. That proposal used the disputed domain name as its contact address. The proposal was accepted and Respondent was awarded EUR 55,000 in public development funding. In the period thereafter, Respondent incorporated splice.ai GmbH, opened a business bank account in that name, filed annual accounts with the Austrian commercial register every year from 2017 to date, conducted email correspondence with vendors and contractors using email addresses at the disputed domain name, and entered into a Letter of Intent with CRATR.games GmbH in December 2025. These are not the acts of a passive cybersquatter. They are the documented activities of a small business operating under its chosen name across an extended development period. Further at no point has Respondent taken any steps that could be said to be targeting Complainant. Indeed there is nothing on the record before the Panel to show that Respondent had any knowledge at all of Complainant until December 5, 2025 when Complainant approached Respondent enquiring about purchasing the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that the pace of development of splice.ai GmbH has been slow and apparently slower than originally envisioned. However, the pace of a small business's development is not a relevant criterion under the Policy, and the reasons for delay - including a global pandemic, the impact of armed conflict on the home of one co-founder, personal circumstances of the principals, and the inherent uncertainties of a start-up venture - seem credible to the Panel and do not undermine the genuineness of the enterprise. Complainant's case in relation to this issue is unsatisfactory. In the Complaint it stated "Nor is Respondent using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The <splice.ai> domain resolves to a skeletal website that purports to describe a business but lacks any meaningful indicia of legitimacy". In fact as Respondent pointed out the splice.ai website (which the Panel doubts is accurately described as "skeletal") bears a copyright notice "© splice.ai GmbH" immediately followed by an "imprint" link which leads to a page with details of that company's corporate status. That fact alone amounts to a clear indication of likely legitimacy. Complainant in a number of different respects seeks to deprecate Respondent's business. Thus for example it describes the splice.ai website as a "mere façade" and "a sham, skeletal website". It also says "Respondent's associated social media accounts …. likewise show years of inactivity and appear to be placeholder accounts rather than evidence of a legitimate enterprise". It describes Respondent's business as a "façade of legitimacy". It is in the Panel's experience not uncommon in disputes under the Policy to encounter respondents who fabricate pretextual evidence that seeks to confer a veneer of legitimacy and hence obfuscate matters. This is not such a case. Nothing the Panel has seen suggests the material in evidence in this case is anything but what it purports to be – documentation generated by a modest bona-fide Austrian start up – it may not have been successful, and its development may have proceeded slowly or indeed completely stalled – but that does not matter. In any event Complainant's allegations make no sense. If Respondent registered the disputed domain name because of its supposed association with Complainant why has it made no attempt to capitalize on that connection in the eight years since the disputed domain name was registered? In particular why did it not reply to Complainant's approach seeking to buy the disputed domain name? That is not the action of a cybersquatter seeking to target Complainant.

 

It is also the case that the company the Respondent co-founded, splice.ai GmbH, has clearly been commonly known by the domain name. Its name is identical to the disputed domain name. Technically Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) applies if the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name and in the current case it is Respondent's company rather than Respondent herself that is so known. However the instances set out in Policy ¶ 4(c) are non-exhaustive and the Panel considers that the fact that the company established by Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name is in any event a further basis for concluding that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The bad faith element requires Complainant to show both that the Domain was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith. These are conjunctive requirements, and both must be established. The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to establish either.

 

As to registration in bad faith: Respondent registered the disputed domain name in December 2017 in connection with a specific project -- a conversational gaming AI interface -- for which she had already obtained government grant funding in 2016 under the splice.ai name. The project has nothing to do with Complainant's business of audio sample libraries and music production tools. "SPLICE" is a common English word, and the record establishes that it is used concurrently as a trademark and business name by dozens of entities worldwide across wholly unrelated fields. Thus for example the following US registered trademarks for the word SPLICE exist:

 

Number        Proprietor

7244003        Purpletree Logistics, Inc.

6880493        Media IP Holdings, LLC

4627173        Splice Software Incorporated

5028659        Odell Brewing Company

6649788        Axis Group, LLC

5496129         Splice Here, Inc.

3161817         Society of Product Licensors Committed to Excellence

6565407         Workspace Development LLC

6042698         DBA Splice Design

4196903         Splice Here, Inc.

7270349         SPLICE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

5317747         AI CREATIVITY S.R.L.

4739673         Blackmagic Design Pty Ltd

6565406         Workspace Development LLC

 

Further as pointed out by Respondent widespread use of the word splice occurs in domain names owned by many different parties operating a wide range of disparate businesses, including the following:

 

Splice.cl - a Chilean network technology provider

Splice.asia - a Singaporean recording studio

Splice.digital - a German software company

Splice.bio - a gene splicing technology venture backed by

$135M in capital investment

Splice.tv - a Minnesota video production company

Splice.com.sg - a Singaporean media production company

Splice.com.au - an Australian business consultancy

Splice.ro - a Romanian fiber optic contractor

Splice.institute - a music education organization

Splice.au - an Australian ISP

Splice.me - a vendor of optical fiber splice diagram software

Splice.net - an Ohio IT consulting and services provider

Splice.app - a video editing app by AI Creativity S.R.L.

Splice.social - an upcoming Ohio creative incubator

Splice.africa - an African finance venture

Splice.guru -a video editing software repository

Splice.cc - a vendor of CRM management software

Splice.com.br - a diversified Brazilian technology services company

 

Absent any evidence of targeting (and there is no such evidence) the Panel cannot conclude, on this record, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with Complainant's mark in mind. Respondent's explanation for the choice of the word - capturing the concept of splicing together human interaction and AI-driven dialogue in a gaming interface - is plausible and independent of Complainant's business. Complainant has provided no evidence of its reputation or prominence in 2016-2017 that would make it improbable that a Viennese entrepreneur developing a conversational gaming tool would independently select the word "splice." In the crowded trademark landscape where dozens of concurrent SPLICE mark owners exist, such independent selection is not merely plausible it is the most reasonable inference on the facts.

 

As to use in bad faith - the disputed domain name currently resolves to the splice.ai website describing its project and identifying its principals. This is active, if modest, use of the disputed domain name in connection with a genuine ongoing business project. It is not passive holding within the meaning of Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. As WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3 makes clear, the relevant factors in applying the passive holding doctrine include the distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, whether the respondent has provided evidence of good-faith use, whether the respondent has concealed its identity, and the plausibility of any good-faith use. None of these factors favours Complainant here. The mark is not distinctive in the relevant sense given its widespread concurrent use. Respondent has filed a detailed Response with extensive documentation of genuine use. Respondent is publicly identified on the website and in corporate registers. And the good-faith use of the Domain to describe an ongoing conversational AI project is not merely plausible - it is demonstrated. The disputed domain name has also been used in e mail correspondence and other documentation – see above. This is not bad faith use.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has also failed to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Complaint is accordingly denied.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The circumstances of this case have led the Panel to consider whether the filing of the Complaint constitutes "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name" – see the Rules, ¶1, definition of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH"). ¶ 15(e) of the Rules provides that if after considering the submissions the panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at RDNH, or was brought primarily to harass the domain name holder, the panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The Rules, ¶ 15(e), call for this analysis even when the respondent has not expressly requested a finding of abuse – see Timbermate Products Pty Ltd v. Domains by Proxy, LLC / Barry Gork, WIPO Case No. D2013-1603. A finding of RDNH does not require malice in the colloquial sense. It is established where a complainant knew or should have known that it could not succeed on one or more of the required elements. See Jazeera Space Channel TV v. AJ Publishing, WIPO Case No. D2005-0309. RDNH may also be found where a complainant has made material misrepresentations of fact, or has filed without conducting reasonable due diligence into the merits of its case. See WIPO Overview 3.1, paragraph 4.16.

 

The Complainant is professionally represented in this matter and, in the opinion of the Panel, knew or ought to have known that it had no reasonable chance of prevailing in this proceeding for the following reasons. First the Complaint takes no account whatsoever of the fact that SPLICE is an ordinary English word and there are multiple concurrent users of that word (see above). The Complaint reads as though the word SPLICE is a coined term that is uniquely associated with the Complainant and hence Respondent must have had Complainant in mind. That is not the case. Second the Complaint takes no account of the fact that Respondent had founded splice.ai GmbH which is an Austrian corporate entity and whose details were provided on the splice.ai website. To contrary effect Complainant portrayed the position in an extremely misleading manner by stating that "There is no evidence that Respondent has ever been known as "Splice," and Respondent could only have selected the <splice.ai> domain name by appropriating Complainant's distinctive trademark". Complainant in the Complaint made no reference at all to the copyright footer on the splice.ai website, its reference to splice.ai GmbH and the link to further corporate information about that company. To compound matters the copy of the splice.ai website that Complainant placed in evidence was of extremely poor quality and the copyright footer barely legible. If the case had proceeded without a Response being filed it is quite likely that information would have been entirely overlooked.

 

Third Complainant characterized Respondent's activities as "aggravated passive holding" which is not so far as the Panel is aware a recognized concept under any previous decided UDRP decisions. Complainant in this regard cited George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007). That case concerned the domain name <gybakeries.mobi. which had been registered by the respondent to that case, had not been used at all, and the respondent had offered to sell it to the complainant for USD750,000. It does not establish a principle of "aggravated passive holding" and does not seem to the Panel to be of any relevance to the facts of the present case.

 

Fourth the Panel is satisfied that Complainant's characterisation of Respondent's business as a "facade of legitimacy" and a "sham" is unsupported by the evidence, inaccurate, and at odds with the documentary record submitted by Respondent. A functioning Austrian GmbH with corporate registration, government grant funding, filed accounts, vendor relationships, and a named management team is not a sham.

 

As the panel noted in Windsor Fashions, Inc. v. Windsor Software Corporation Case No: D2002-0839: "the Panel finds it hard to believe the Complainant did not know the Respondent was some sort of business enterprise. Whether that enterprise is successful, well-managed or whatever, is not relevant for Policy purposes. What is relevant is that Respondent, an on-going business, is named "Windsor Software Corporation". The same is true in the present case.

 

 

The Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding within the meaning of Policy ¶ 15(e). A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is accordingly made against 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 <splice.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

The Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding within the meaning of Policy ¶ 15(e). A finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is accordingly made against Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner, Panelist

Dated: March 9, 2026