DECISION

 

Sesame AI, Inc. v. wang wei

Claim Number: FA2602002207220

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sesame AI, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James R. Davis of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is wang wei ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ai-sesame.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they he acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 25, 2026; Forum received payment on February 25, 2026.

 

On February 26, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ai-sesame.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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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@ai-sesame.com. Also on March 2, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant is an artificial intelligence enterprise established by prominent, serial technology entrepreneurs. SESAME AI emerged from stealth on February 27, 2025, upon the activation of its website. Immediately following this debut, SESAME AI's conversational AI companion garnered significant global interest, as evidenced by myriad news articles, blogs, and, regrettably, imitation websites attempting to trade off the goodwill accrued by SESAME AI in its inherently distinctive SESAME and SESAME AI trademarks. Complainant owns two trademark registrations for its "SESAME with a device" marks (i.e., UKIPO Reg. No. UK00004255344 registered November 21, 2025; Swiss IPI Reg. No. 838206 registered October 21, 2025) and several pending applications, along with the common law rights established in its inherently distinctive SESAME trademarks immediately after launching the brand and services on February 27, 2025. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks insofar as it wholly incorporates the SESAME AI name and trademark in conjunction with the generic top-level domain ".com."

 

ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's SESAME marks in their entireties; Complainant owns prior rights in the SESAME marks; and Complainant maintains no business relationship with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to register the disputed domain name. Therefore, the circumstances above establish a prima facie case that Respondent lacks any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

iii) Respondent registered the disputed domain on March 1, 2025, two days after Complainant launched its software and services and vested common law trademarks and goodwill in its inherently distinctive SESAME marks. Respondent plainly learned of Complainant's software and trademarks from the public discourse and press coverage of Complainant's pioneering AI software. Respondent manifestly knew of Complainant's trademarks and repute when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent's website at the disputed domain name actually refers to Complainant and its trademarks. Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name creates a false impression of association with Complainant and demonstrates Respondent's intent to profit from the goodwill created by Complainant. The sole purpose of Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is to profit off of SESAME AI's trademarks and goodwill. For example, Respondent's website includes, but is not limited to, sponsored advertisements for JUSTANSWER and CHATBOT PRO that generate revenue for Respondent, and links to various websites which Respondent either owns or for which Respondent receives commissions for directing traffic. Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has lost prior UDRP disputes. In at least two other UDRP proceedings, Respondent was held to have registered and used domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on March 1, 2025.

 

2. Complainant owns two trademark registrations for its "SESAME with a device" marks (i.e., UKIPO Reg. No. UK00004255344 registered November 21, 2025; Swiss IPI Reg. No. 838206 registered October 21, 2025) and several pending applications.

 

3. Complainant holds common law rights to SESAME and SESAME AI accruing from at least as early as February 27, 2025, in connection with its AI software and services facilitating voice assistants that generate a natural, human-like voice, distinguishable from the mechanical or robotic voices produced by third parties.

 

4. Respondent's website at the disputed domain name expressly refers to Complainant and its trademarks.

 

5. Respondent prominently embeds a YOUTUBE video discussing SESAME AI on the main landing page of the resolving website to falsely suggest that said website is operated by or affiliated with SESAME AI.

 

6. In the "Experience Natural AI Voice Today" section on the index page of the resolving website, Respondent includes a blue button labeled "Try SESAME AI," which, when clicked, links to the aforementioned YOUTUBE video that showcases SESAME AI and its artificial intelligence companions MILES and MAYA, including a demonstration of SESAME AI's capabilities.

 

7. Respondent's website includes, but is not limited to, sponsored advertisements for JUSTANSWER and CHATBOT PRO that generate revenue for Respondent, as well as links to various websites which Respondent either owns or for which Respondent receives commissions for directing traffic.

 

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 asserts rights in the "SESAME with a device" marks (i.e., UKIPO Reg. No. UK00004255344 registered November 21, 2025; Swiss IPI Reg. No. 838206 registered October 21, 2025) and several pending applications. Registration of a mark with national trademark authorities constitutes valid evidence of trademark rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), and Complainant has submitted supporting documentation of its "SESAME with a device" mark registrations. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established rights in the "SESAME with a device" mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant further contends that it owns common law rights in SESAME and SESAME AI dating back to at least as early as February 27, 2025, in connection with its AI software and services producing voice assistants that speak in a natural, human-like voice, as distinguished from mechanical or robotic voices produced by third parties. The Panel notes that in order to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with Complainant's goods and/or services.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant's mark is sufficiently unique and distinctive, and thus does not require a higher degree of consumer recognition, unlike generic or descriptive marks. In today's digital environment, a mark can acquire source-identifying significance even within a short period of time if it is exposed to a sufficiently large and relevant audience. See section 1.3, WIPO Overview 3.1("The length of time that the mark has been used is not itself determinative. Panels have noted that, nowadays, some brands may rapidly acquire recognition due to a broad and significant Internet presence and user base.")

 

The Panel observes that immediately after exiting stealth on February 27, 2025, Complainant's conversational AI companion amassed global interest as evidenced by myriad news articles and blogs. The Panel concludes that by the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name, Complainant's inherently distinctive SESAME and SESAME AI marks had become a source identifier through associated reputation and goodwill, and in connection with Complainant's well-known offerings.

 

Next, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <ai-sesame.com>, is confusingly similar to its SESAME and SESAME AI marks, as it fully incorporates the marks, merely adding the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that there is a prima facie case that Respondent lacks any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name given the circumstances that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's SESAME marks in their entireties, Complainant owns prior rights in the SESAME marks, and Complainant does not maintain a business relationship with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to register the disputed domain name.

        

Relevant information, such as WHOIS records, can be used as evidence to demonstrate whether a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "wang wei" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Panel further notes that (i) Respondent's website at the disputed domain name actually refers to Complainant and its trademarks; (ii) Respondent prominently embeds a YouTube video that discusses Sesame AI on the main page of the website at the disputed domain name to falsely suggest the disputed domain name's resolving website is operated by or affiliated with Sesame AI; and (iii) in the "Experience Natural AI Voice Today" section on the first page of the website at the disputed domain name, Respondent includes a blue button titled "Try Sesame AI," which when clicked on, links to the YouTube video on the website at the disputed domain name that discusses Sesame AI and its artificial intelligence companions Miles and Maya, including a demo of Sesame AI's capabilities.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because Respondent employs the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, the Panel may find that the respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's use of the domain name to feature the complainant's mark and related content did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's activities associated with the disputed domain name are fraudulent, create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks, and are likely to mislead or disrupt Internet users. The Panel concludes that Respondent's fraudulent conduct and acts of passing off do not constitute use of the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case arising from the considerations above. All of these matters serve to establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name creates a false impression of association with Complainant and demonstrates Respondent's intent to profit from the goodwill created by Complainant.  

 

The Panel observes that when a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, this may constitute bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). see Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").  

 

As previously noted, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that expressly refers to Complainant and its trademarks. Furthermore, Respondent's website includes but is not limited to sponsored ads for JustAnswer and Chatbot Pro that generate revenue for Respondent, and links to various websites which Respondent owns or receives commissions for directing traffic to these websites.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name disrupts Complainant's business and secures commercial benefits by diverting Internet users to Respondent's website, thereby creating confusion and falsely suggesting an affiliation with Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).  

 

Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights, in view of the reputation of Complainant's marks prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and Respondent's reference to Complainant's marks on its website.  

 

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered two days after Complainant launched its software under the name SESAME AI. Respondent must have been aware of the rights in Complainant's SESAME AI mark and was highly likely to have targeted Complainant. The Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registration, given the public recognition of the SESAME AI marks and Respondent's act of passing itself off as Complainant by using the SESAME AI marks on the resolving website of the disputed domain name, which actually refers to Complainant and its trademarks. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 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 <ai-sesame.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: March 25, 2026