DECISION

 

Deal.ai Inc. v. Danish Ayub / MWM Studioz

Claim Number: FA2602002204413

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Deal.ai Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Danish Ayub / MWM Studioz ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <gofamousai.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 9, 2026; Forum received payment on February 9, 2026.

 

On February 10, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gofamousai.com> 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 February 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 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@gofamousai.com. Also on February 11, 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.

 

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

 

On March 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James BridgemanC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights at common law in the FAMOUS.AI, mark which it uses on its Internet platform at <www.famous.ai> offering a simplified process to create Internet applications that removes the need for coding. Complainant submits that its FAMOUS.AI mark has been in continuous use since April 27, 2025, and the mark is prominently displayed on Complainant's software platform and website and social media profiles, including Facebook, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube, as shown in screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Complainant submits that since its launch it has received press coverage including in USA Today, The Street, and CloudTech, that has lauded Complainant's FAMOUS.AI offerings. Copies of samples of the press coverage has been exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the FAMOUS.AI mark, arguing that it meets the test for confusing similarity which typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name at issue and the textual components of the relevant trademark. In this regard Complainant cites WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Thus, "where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing."

 

It is argued that the disputed domain name <gofamousai.com> fully encompasses, and is virtually identical to Complainant's FAMOUS.AI mark and its <famous.ai> domain name; and Respondent's inclusion of the generic term "go" at the start of the disputed domain name and exclusion of a period between the elements "famous" and "ai" do nothing to differentiate Respondent's use or limit the risk of consumer confusion. See Television Food Network, G.P. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1881075 (Forum March 10, 2020) (holding that the incorporation of the word "go" in the disputed domain <foodnetworkgo.com> did not sufficiently distinguish the domain from Complainant's trademark FOODNETWORK).

 

·       Secondly Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing:

·       Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name;

·       Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the FAMOUS.AI Mark, or any confusingly similar mark, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the FAMOUS.AI mark or a term confusingly similar to the FAMOUS.AI mark, citing the decision of the panel in Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (respondent had no rights or legitimate interests to use the domain name because respondent was not licensed or otherwise permitted to use complainant's trademark);

·       as shown in the screen captures of Complainant's website at <www.famous.ai> and the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which are exhibited in the Complaint, Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain as the address of a website that is a copy of Complainant's platform;

·       such use of the disputed domain name by Respondent to promote its own copycat website, does not create rights or legitimate interests as held by the panel in See also Humana Inc. v. Cayman Trademark Trust, WIPO Case D2006-0073 ("Using the Complainant's mark as a domain name to divert traffic to Respondent's own portal site is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name").

 

It is further contended that Respondent's use of the FAMOUS.AI mark in the disputed domain name is not nominative fair use and can easily be avoided and Respondent does not need to make use of the FAMOUS.AI mark in order to run its own independent website. In this regard Complainant refers to the decision in Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Hotel Partners of Richmond, WIPO Case D2003-0222 (WIPO May 14, 2003) (finding that the use of the complainant's HOLIDAY INN mark in the domain name <holidayinnhotelreservations.com> was not nominative fair use because it was not an unavoidable and necessary use of a mark to identify respondent's services).

 

Finally, Complainant argues that engaging in impersonation does not establish rights or legitimate interests. See e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1 ("Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g.,…impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.").

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing that the registrant of the disputed domain name clearly had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its name when the disputed domain name was registered because:

·       the disputed domain name is essentially identical to Complainant's FAMOUS.AI mark. Complainant's brand name, and its <famous.ai> domain name;

·       the website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays content clearly taken from Complainant's site, including a highly similar tagline, a fully copied FAQ section, and an identical email address, along with a futuristic image of the human body with overlapping text extracted from a video on Complainant's site; and

·       Respondent had no reason to register the disputed domain name other than to exploit Complainant's brand, as otherwise Respondent could have very easily created a website under a different, distinct name that was not nearly identical to Complainant's FAMOUS.AI mark.

 

In this regard Complainant cites the decision of the panel in Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line / The Line, FA 1765498 (Forum Feb. 6, 2018) (finding that the respondent had actual knowledge of the complainant's prior rights in and to its trademark given the totality of the circumstances and thus the respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name when it registered the name).

 

Complainant argues that given the identical use of the FAMOUS.AI Mark in the disputed domain name, and the copying of Complainant on Respondent's site, it is impossible that Respondent's selection of the disputed domain name was the result of mere coincidence without knowledge of Complainant's prior rights.

 

Furthermore Complainant submits that Respondent is intentionally using the disputed domain name to create initial interest confusion, citing Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc. d/b/a FACTS Management Co. v. Andrew Goldberger, WIPO Case D2013-0764 (WIPO June 13, 2013) (finding bad faith and noting "confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the [complainant's] trademark creates the risk that users will accidentally visit Respondent's site in the belief that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant…the deliberate creation of initial interest confusion by a party directly 'in competition with the Complainant for the provision of goods or services' is an archetypical example of bad faith registration and use").

 

In conclusion, Complainant submits that by copying the content of Complainant's platform on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, Respondent is Impersonating Complainant and thereby prompting Internet users to believe there is an association between Complainant and Respondent. There can be no good faith explanation for Respondent's behavior.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns and operates a software application development platform at <www.famous.ai>.

 

Complaint uses and promotes its services using the FAMOUS.AI mark in the name and content of its platform and in social media.

 

In May 2025, it launched its account on the X platform.

 

On June 26, 2025, the disputed domain name <gofamousai.com> was registered, and it resolves to a website that contains content copied from  Complainant's platform, on which Respondent purports to impersonate Complainant.

 

On December 8, 2025, Complainant applied to register the mark FAMOUS.AI in the United States of America, and the application is still pending as application number 99,535,033.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this Complaint.

 

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

Complainant has no registered trademark rights in the FAMOUS.AI mark. It has a United States of America trademark application to register the FAMOUS mark, but that application does not create any rights.

 

However, the evidence shows that Complainant hosts an Internet platform at <www.famous.ai>, which it established at least as early as May 2025 when it created its account on the X platform.

 

Complaint has also exhibited copies of news media coverage commenting on its platform and responses from the public on its social media accounts.

The Panel finds therefore that for the purposes of this proceeding, on the balance of probabilities Complainant has a protectible reputation in the FAMOUS.AI mark, creating rights at common law.

 

The disputed domain name <gofamousai.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, albeit with the omission of the period between the elements "famous" and "ai", the addition of the word "go" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <com>.

 

It is well established that, as in the present case, it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Nonetheless for completeness it may be added that the absence of the period between the elements is not significant for the comparison, and that the word "go" does not reduce the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark.

 

Furthermore, the gTLD extension <.com> may be ignored for the purposes of comparison as Internet users would consider it to be a necessary technical element of a domain name.

 

The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FAMOUS.AI mark in which Complainant has rights at common law.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, the uncontested evidence is that the disputed domain name is intentionally composed to create an false impression of an association with Complainant's online platform providing software building services, and Respondent is purporting to impersonate Complainant and confuse Internet users.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has convincingly argued that the disputed domain name was registered with Complainant's FAMOUS.AI mark and Internet platform in mind.

 

The timeline is that Complainant claims that it first launched its FAMOUS.AI platform on April 27, 2025. The launch date is not established by the evidence, however the screen captures exhibited the annexes to the Complaint show that Complainant had an active social media account using the FAMOUS.AI mark on X platform in May 2025.

 

The disputed domain name was registered on June 26, 2025. Because the combination of the elements "famous" and "ai" are distinctive, and Complainant's FAMOUS.AI is the dominant element in the disputed domain name and it is improbable that it was registered by coincidence.

 

Any doubt as to whether Complainant, as a start-up enterprise, had established a significant reputation by June 26, 2025, is met by the fact that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to target Complainant. The screen captures show that Respondent has taken content from Complainant's website and has purported to impersonate Complainant on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.

 

Taken together these factors show that on the balance of probabilities the registrant of the disputed domain name was actually aware of Complainant when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.

 

The Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant's goodwill in its FAMOUS.AI platform.

 

Because of the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and the FAMOUS.AI mark and platform, on the balance of probabilities Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to  Respondent's website. Such use of the mark is intended to create an initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website.

 

In the circumstances outlined above, such use of the disputed domain name constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

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

 

 

 

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: March 6, 2026