DECISION

 

Kong Inc. v. sumit patel / Kong AI

Claim Number: FA2604002216663

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Kong Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Patchen M. Haggerty of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is sumit patel / Kong AI ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <kong.ai>, 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.

 

Darryl C. Wilson, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 17, 2026; Forum received payment on April 17, 2026.

 

On April 20, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kong.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 April 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 11, 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@kong.ai. Also on April 21, 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 May 12, 2026, pursuant to the Parties' request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Darryl C. Wilson, 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

Complainant is a leading technology company specializing in API and connectivity solutions, empowering businesses to build, deploy, and manage modern software applications with efficiency and scalability, with clients including major companies all over the world.

 

One of Complainant's key products is its Kong AI Gateway, a cutting-edge platform designed specifically to help enterprises manage the integration and governance of artificial intelligence (AI) across their operations.

 

Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations in the U.S. and around the world for the KONG mark, including U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 5094093, 6069616, and 6176455, covering goods and services in Classes 9 and 42.

 

Respondent intentionally secured the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, or otherwise inappropriately leverage Complainant's mark to compete with Complainant or leverage Complainant's goodwill with a related technology offering.

 

Complainant owns U.S. federal registrations and Indian registrations for Complainant's mark, KONG, in standard character format. Complainant's rights in the Complainant's mark predate the registration date of the disputed domain, and Complainant clearly enjoys priority of rights.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent did not take ownership and control of the Disputed Domain until July-August 2024. Accordingly, Complainant's rights in Complainant's Mark predate Respondent's true establishment of ownership and control over the disputed domain by many years.

 

The disputed domain resolves to a website that features Complainant's mark combined only with the non-distinctive and descriptive term AI, thereby leveraging Complainant's mark in connection with a competing technology business or otherwise leveraging Complainant's mark to capitalize on Complainant's name recognition in the technology and software space.

 

Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is Kong Inc. ("Complainant"), of San Francisco, CA, USA. Complainant is the owner of domestic and global registrations for the mark KONG which it has continuously used since at least as early as April 28, 2015, in connection with its development, distribution, and marketing of technology, software goods and services.

 

Respondent is Sumit Patel / Kong AI ("Respondent"), of Hyderabad, India. Respondent's registrar's address is indicated by its IANA ID however its corporate address is located in Phoenix, AZ, USA. The domain name was first registered on or about December 15, 2017, however it appears that the domain name was parked and for sale as of July 24, 2024 and that Respondent first used it in connection with his business on or about August 6, 2024.

 

Based on the reasons noted below Complainant has successfully proven all the elements necessary for its requested relief to be granted.

 

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 3.1 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 KONG mark based upon its registration of the mark with the USPTO (see USPTO Reg. No. 5094093 registered December 6, 2016). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in the mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has established rights in the KONG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The disputed domain name contains the KONG mark in its entirety while merely adding the ".ai" generic top-level domain (gTLD). Prior UDRP panels have found that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety with the addition of a generic top-level domain is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's registered mark. See Vulcan Materials Co. v. Ned Hatchinson/Milen Radmullo FA 2003227 (Forum Aug. 10, 2022) (finding <vulcanmaterials.co> confusingly similar to VULCAN), see also MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) ("The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity.").

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel here finds the domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant has proven this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel notes that 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 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)); see also 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"). Complainant has made out a prima facie case here.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use Complainant's KONG mark, any derivatives thereof, nor register domain names using its mark. Nothing in Respondent's WHOIS information or the record indicates that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its KONG mark. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.).

 

Because Respondent and its affiliates have never been authorized by Complainant to use the KONG mark or any related confusingly similar mark as part of a domain name, a presumption arises that Respondent cannot establish that it has rights or any legitimate interest in the domain name. See Nilfisk-Advance A/S v. Leong Tak Lang, Case No. D2000-1299 (WIPO Dec. 27, 2000) (concluding the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in <nilfisk.net> domain name based upon the fact that the respondent is not an authorized agent or licensee of the complainant.).

 

In addition, Respondent is not using the disputed domain in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain resolves to a website that features Complainant's mark combined only with the non-distinctive and descriptive term AI, leveraging Complainant's mark in connection with a competing technology business or otherwise using Complainant's mark to capitalize on the name recognition of Complainant in the technology and software industry. Previous panels have held that such misuse of a domain featuring a complainant's mark does not create rights or a legitimate interest in a domain. See, SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Omid Khorshidi, FA 2158413 (Forum Jun. 24, 2025) ("Use of the domain name containing a third party mark for competing services is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use."); see also Recharge, Inc. v. Kennan Davison / Jika, Inc., FA 2003712 (Forum Aug. 15, 2022) ("Where a respondent uses a domain to redirect users to competing services, the panel may find the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)").

 

The Panel here finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and further lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

The Complainant has proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant's rights in its KONG mark before registering the domain name given Complainant's domestic registration of its mark, as well as Complainant's extensive global and domestic use of the KONG mark. By registering the domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in its KONG mark, Respondent acted in bad faith. See Orbitz, LLC v. Rajiv Khatri, Service Network, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2015-1665 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2015)(stating "[t]he Respondent's registrations are in bad faith also because it arguably knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark at the time of registration. A standard trademark search would show the Complainant's mark"), see also Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name").

 

Respondent did not dispute that it used Complainant's mark and copied Complainant's website as well as provided links to itself and others regarding counterfeit goods and services. Prior panels have found that such use of a complainant's marks and unauthorized offerings via links to competitors is indicative of a respondent's bad faith registration and use. See Snap Inc. v. Albert Gulyamov, FA 2025849 (Forum Feb. 9, 2023) (finding Respondent's use of the SNAPCHAT® mark in the domain and as a service name on the website to offer blog articles about the Snapchat App and to benefit financially from promoting an unrelated commercial website and WordPress SEO plugin via advertisements and embedded links, was bad faith); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Forum June 24, 2002) (finding bad faith where respondent registered and used a confusingly similar domain name to divert internet users to pay-per-click websites for respondent's financial gain).

 

Respondent's prior use of the domain name was an attempt to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's KONG mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the complainant's mark and the content advertised on the respondent's website was obvious, the respondent "must have known about the Complainant's mark when it registered the subject domain name").

 

Respondent raises no contentions with regards to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel here finds that Complainant has shown bad faith registration and use by Respondent per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant has proven this element.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that Complainant's requested relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <kong.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Darryl C. Wilson, Panelist

Dated: May 13, 2026