DECISION

 

o9 Solutions, Inc. v. Khadi Merim

Claim Number: FA2604002218693

 

PARTIES

Complainant is o9 Solutions, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Thomas L. Warden of Conley Rose, P.C., Texas, USA. Respondent is Khadi Merim ("Respondent"), Algeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <o9.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.

 

 Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 29, 2026; Forum received payment on April 29, 2026.

 

On April 30, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <o9.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 May 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 26, 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@o9.ai. Also on May 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 May 15, 2026.

 

On May 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, o9, develops and markets business consultancy services and related business educational services, as well as offers business software for enterprise resource and financial planning, business management, and operational strategic planning, all using its registered trademark O9®. Since at least as early as 2024, Complainant's software has prominently featured artificial intelligence.

 

Complainant has nearly 3,000 employees and has offices throughout the United States, as well as Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, and India. Complainant was founded in 2009 and has customers worldwide, both large, publicly traded corporations, as well as smaller private businesses.

 

Complainant owns USPTO registration No. 4,209,591 for the standard character mark "O9", registered September 18, 2012. Complainant also owns USPTO registration No. 6,541,112 for the stylized word mark "O9", registered October 20, 2021.

 

Complainant registered the domain name O9.AI in 2020. From 2020 through January 2026, Complainant was the exclusive registrant and operator of the domain name O9.AI. Complainant continuously used this website to advertise its goods and services and to conduct daily business and operations. Complainant has never authorized any third party to use the domain name O9.AI for any purpose at all.

 

As a result of an administrative oversight, Complainant's registration for the O9.AI domain name expired in January 2026. Despite Complainant's repeated requests to reinstate the registration, the registration was transferred to the Respondent in early April 2026.

 

Other than Complainant, no person or business has ever held federally registered trademark rights in a mark comprising the word "O9." The "O9" mark is a strong mark. It has no inherent meaning and is arbitrary with respect to Complainant's goods and services.

 

The top-level domain .AI is the county code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the country of Anguilla. There is no existing business registered in Anguilla with a name comprising the word "O9." Complainant is the only well-known business with the name "O9."

 

Respondent has never used the name or designation "O9" for any lawful personal or business purpose. Respondent and registrant of the O9.AI domain name has never had any operational website at the domain name O9.AI.

 

At the time that Respondent first acquired the domain name O9.AI, Respondent had no intention of ever using the domain name. Rather, at the time, Respondent intended to acquire the domain name for the sole purpose of selling it back to Complainant for an amount significantly above the normal and actual costs of domain name registration.

 

In late March and early April, 2026, Complainant contacted the registrars Identity Digital and NameCheap in an attempt to reinstate Complainant's mistakenly expired O9.AI domain name. The registrars advised Complainant that the domain name had already been registered by a third party and that reinstating the domain name was not possible. Complainant then contacted the new registrant through the ATOM.COM website, which had been suggested for this specific purpose by the registrar NameCheap.

 

On April 20, the owner/operator of the ATOM.COM website, acting as the registrant or agent for the registrant, responded to Complainant by offering to sell Complainant the O9.AI domain name for $100,000.00. Respondent and ATOM.COM sought this large sum from Complainant only because of Complainant's longstanding history of prior use of the O9.AI domain name, and because of Complainant's long history of using the registered trademark O9® in Complainant's well-known software and consultancy business.

 

As of the date of this Complaint, the Respondent has never used the domain name O9.AI for any purpose, whether personal or business. Respondent has also never had any demonstrable preparations to use the domain name O9.AI or any other similar name incorporating the word "O9," whether for personal use or business, such as the bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The Respondent has never been commonly known by the name "O9," "O9.AI," nor any other designation similar to or incorporating the word "O9." 

 

Respondent's only apparent use of the O9.AI domain name has been to offer it for sale to Complainant o9 for a sum that dramatically exceeds Respondent's costs of acquisition.

 

Respondent registered the O9.AI domain name in bad faith because the domain name was acquired by Respondent solely or primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name registration back to the Complainant, who previously owned the domain name and who is the owner of the trademark "O9," for valuable consideration far in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs to acquire the domain name.

 

The domain name O9.AI is identical to Complainant's two registered trademarks.

 

B. Respondent

On April 2, 2026, Respondent purchased the <o9.ai> domain at public auction for $3,279.96

 

The Complainant fails to prove the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent is a professional domain investor whose acquisition was based on the generic, liquid value of a two character alphanumeric string.

 

With only 1,296 possible combinations, two-character .ai domains are rare "category-killer" assets. Their value is derived from brevity and brandability, independent of any specific trademark.

 

The Respondent did not "target" the Complainant. The domain was acquired in a transparent auction featuring 39 total bids.

 

The Respondent was forced to outbid DomainBooth, one of the world's most reputable professional domain brokerages. The participation of a high-level brokerage proves that the domain possesses a broad Fair Market Value recognized by industry experts.

 

The Complainant has provided no evidence of targeting. The record shows the Complainant—not the Respondent—initiated all contact.

 

The Complainant only filed this UDRP after failing to secure the domain at their preferred price. A disagreement over the valuation of a rare asset ($31,000 vs. $100,000) is a commercial dispute, not "Bad Faith" use.

 

The Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Complainant, a multi-billion dollar entity, is using the UDRP as a "Plan B" tool to harass a private individual after failing to negotiate a price. By omitting the fact that they initiated a $31,000 offer, the Complainant has acted in bad faith to abuse these administrative proceedings.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel finds that Complainant is not entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <o9.ai> domain name.

 

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant owns USPTO registration No. 4,209,591 for the standard character mark "O9", registered September 18, 2012. Complainant also owns USPTO registration No. 6,541,112 for the stylized word mark "O9", registered October 20, 2021. Complainant's registration of the marks with the United States establishes Complainant's rights in the marks, as "registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." See Target Brands, Inc. v JK Internet Services, FA 349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's <o9.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to its O9 marks because it incorporates that mark completely and differs only by the addition of the ".ai", the country code top-level domain ("ccTLD") for Anguilla. The addition of a ccTLD does not alleviate the similarity between a mark and a disputed domain name as per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See VOERE Holding GmbH v. Matteo Passoni / TECHNOLOGY SWISS HSE SA, FA 2024402 (Forum Jan. 16, 2023) ("Respondent's Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's VOERE mark. It fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the ".us" ccTLD. This change does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel finds that Respondent's <o9.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to the O9 marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant has proved this element.

 

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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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."). The Panel finds that Complainant has not made a prima facie case.

 

Respondent is a professional domain investor who purchased the domain name at an auction.

 

WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 2.1 states, in part:

 

Over the course of many UDRP cases, panels have acknowledged further grounds that, although not specifically articulated in the UDRP, may establish respondent rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. For example, generally speaking, panels have accepted that aggregating and holding domain names (usually for resale) consisting e.g., of acronyms, dictionary words, common phrases, or unique/catchy or memorable terms (alone or in combination) can be bona fide and is not per se illegitimate under the UDRP where the respondent can show that the purpose of the registration was not to target a trademark

 

There is no evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant. The communications regarding purchase of the domain name were initiated by Complaint. The Panel finds that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Complainant has not proven this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith because Respondent has offered the domain for sale in excess of out-of-pocket costs.

 

WIPO Overview 3.1, Section 3.1.1 states:

 

Generally speaking, panels have found that the practice as such of registering a domain name for subsequent resale (including for a profit) would not by itself support a claim that the respondent registered the domain name in bad faith with the primary purpose of selling it to a trademark owner (or its competitor).

Circumstances indicating that a domain name was registered for the bad-faith purpose of selling it to a trademark owner can be highly fact-specific; the nature of the domain name (e.g., whether a typo of a famous mark, a domain name wholly incorporating the relevant mark plus a geographic term or one related to the complainant's area of commercial activity, or a pure dictionary term) and the distinctiveness of trademark at issue, among other factors, are relevant to this inquiry.

The use to which the domain name is put, particularly the absence of circumstances indicating that the respondent's aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the complainant's trademark, can inform a panel's assessment of the respondent's intent. Such circumstances notably include credible pre-complaint website content corresponding to a dictionary meaning of the term comprising the domain name, as opposed to targeting the trademark owner or its competitor. Panels have also viewed a respondent's use of "negative keywords" or similar means to avoid links/content impermissibly capitalizing on a trademark as relevant in assessing a respondent's overall intent

 

[…]

 

Offers to sell … panels have generally found that where a registrant has an independent right to or legitimate interest in a domain name, an offer to sell that domain name would not by itself be evidence of bad faith for purposes of the UDRP, irrespective of which party solicits the prospective sale. This also includes "generalized" offers to sell, including those on a third-party platform. Panels have noted in respect of UDRP paragraph 4(b)(i) that offers to sell which exceed the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs must target a trademark owner; assessment of such targeting will take account of all relevant facts and circumstances, and often includes matters such as the strength of the mark at issue (including whether there may be third parties also using the term as a mark for other goods/services including in other jurisdictions and whether it may also be descriptive or a dictionary term capable of non-infringing uses), the extent or reach of the complainant's online presence, and the location of the parties. Mere offers to sell for a profit, where this does not target a trademark owner would not be considered to violate paragraph 4(b)(i). Panels moreover rely on the parties to provide evidence of such costs.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant. The Panel finds that it has not been proven that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant has not proven this element.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The Panel finds that it has not been proven that Complainant acted in bad faith when it initiated this proceeding.

 

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 <o9.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist

May 28, 2026