DECISION

 

Zora Labs, Inc. v. zoia ai

Claim Number: FA2607002230778

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Zora Labs, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Merri C. Moken of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, United States. Respondent is zoia ai ("Respondent"), United Kingdom, represented by Gareth Price of Murgitroyd & Company Limited, United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <zoia.ai>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 2, 2026; Forum received payment on July 2, 2026.

 

On July 8, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <zoia.ai> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 July 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 3, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@zoia.ai. Also on July 14, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 July 30, 2026.

 

On July 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 provides a web3 platform on which users can create, buy, sell, curate, and view social media content and other digital assets on the blockchain. Complainant provides AI tools for use in content creation, among other goods and services. Complainant has used ZORA in connection with its software-related goods and services and cryptocurrency exchange services since 2020, and in connection with AI-driven services since at least early as March 2024. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for ZORA in standard character form and United Kingdom registrations for ZORA and ZORA LABS, along with other registrations and pending applications.

 

The disputed domain name <zoia.ai> was registered in September 2023. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. Complainant states that a name search of United Kingdom Companies House does not reflect the existence of a "zoia.ai" or "zoia ai" business entity. Complainant states further that the domain name was being used for an inactive "under construction" site as recently as April 2026, and that it was "quickly converted ... to a purportedly functional site offering AI predictive services" only after Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent. Complainant asserts that the services now being promoted on the website are similar to those offered by Complainant under its ZORA marks. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not an authorized provider of Complainant's goods and services, and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <zoia.ai> is confusingly similar to its ZORA and ZORA LABS marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states that it has used ZOIA as the name of a genuine commercial AI-fintech project since at least 2023. Respondent provided various documentation in support of this claim, including a business plan for ZOIA.AI dated October 13, 2023; a related license agreement dated October 2, 2023; correspondence regarding the incorporation of a Luxembourg company that would trade under the ZOIA brand; and other evidence relating to the development of the ZOIA brand, corporate identity, and website. In addition, Respondent owns (through its founder and CEO) a United Kingdom trademark registration for ZOIA.AI in standard character form and has a pending United States application for ZOIA.

 

Respondent requests a finding of reverse domain name hijacking, alleging that Complainant was aware, before filing the Complaint, that the disputed domain name resolved to a website presenting an AI-fintech business under the ZOIA name, and that Complainant should have been aware of the possibility that Respondent was asserting and using independent rights in the ZOIA.AI name rather than engaging in cybersquatting.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel further finds that Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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

The disputed domain name <zoia.ai> incorporates Complainant's registered ZORA trademark, substituting a letter "i" for the "R" and adding the ".ai" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Zora Labs, Inc. v. Zora AI / Zora Digital, FA 2169295 (Forum Sept. 4, 2025) (finding <zoradigital.ai> confusingly similar to ZORA); Vudu, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. / K Blacklock, D2019-2247 (WIPO Nov. 15, 2019) (finding <vudo.com> confusingly similar to VUDU). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, Respondent may demonstrate rights and legitimate interests by proving "before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute, [Respondent's] use of, or 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."

 

Respondent has made such a showing, supported by evidence of its substantial preparations over a period of years to use the domain name in connection with what appears to the Panel to be a legitimate commercial venture and its registration of a corresponding UK trademark. See, e.g., Gapardis Health & Beauty, Inc. v. Frantz Boulos, FA 1917653 (Forum Nov. 23, 2020) (finding rights or interests in similar circumstances); SPS Commerce, Inc. v. Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC & Singapore Post Ltd., FA 1724583 (Forum May 24, 2017) (same). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has not proved that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as required by paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For substantially the same reasons, and because it does not appear to the Panel that Respondent selected the disputed domain name for reasons having anything to do with Complainant or its marks, the Panel finds that Complainant has not proved the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

While Respondent has presented substantial evidence of its preparations for bona fide use of the disputed domain name, little of this evidence was likely to be available to Complainant when it filed the Complaint in this proceeding, and the Panel is sympathetic to Complainant's skepticism regarding Respondent's activities and motives. The Panel declines to enter a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <zoia.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 30, 2026