DECISION

 

Udemy, Inc. v. Sanju Kumari

Claim Number: FA2607002233149

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Udemy, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chris Civil of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Sanju Kumari ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <en-udemy.com>, registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S.

 

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 July 16, 2026; Forum received payment on July 16, 2026.

 

On July 28, 2026, Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <en-udemy.com> domain name is registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. 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 30, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 19, 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@en-udemy.com.

 

Also on July 30, 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 August 20, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 in the UDEMY mark established by its ownership of the trademark registrations described below and at common law rights through use in its business providing online learning and related products and services.

 

Founded in 2010, Complainant submits that it is one of the largest global online learning destinations. It presents its "UDEMY platform", with thousands of up-to-date courses in dozens of languages, offers the tools learners, instructors, and companies need to achieve their goals and reach their full potential. The platform has 84 million learners and enables its global cohort of 90,000 instructors to offer their expertise to individuals and organizations around the globe.

 

Complainant submits that its "learning marketplace" enables tens of thousands of instructors to develop, distribute and enhance content that reaches Complainant's broad global audience of learners. To achieve this it leverages technology, including artificial intelligence ("AI"), as well as data and insights, to deliver personalized, immersive and effective learning experiences. Its instructors around the world have created courses in 78 languages, resulting in over 290,000 courses on Complainant's platform.

 

Complainant submits that during 2025, an average of over 6,300 new courses were added to its platform each month, and instructors on the platform earned $168 million.

 

Complainant adds that it also offers an employee training and development platform to businesses with subscription access to more than 29,000 courses. Currently, more than 50% of the Fortune 100 use UDEMY Business to help their employees learn new skills.

Complainant submits that it is headquartered in San Francisco, California and has offices in Ankara, Turkey; Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Dublin, Ireland; Melbourne, Australia; New Delhi, India; and Sao Paulo, Brazil.        

 

In 2021, Udemy went public and is currently traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the symbol UDMY. Udemy's fiscal 2024 revenue was approximately USD $786 million. It has over 8.5 million followers on Facebook and 3.6 million followers on Instagram.

 

Furthermore it has partnered with the Major League Soccer team the San Jose Earthquakes as their Official Learning and Skills Partner and Official Training Jersey Partner; and the UDEMY mark appears prominently on the San Jose Earthquakes pre-match jerseys.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's UDEMY mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the element "en-," a hyphenated two-letter abbreviation commonly understood to denote an English-language version of a website.

 

Complainant argues that panels established under the Policy have found confusing similarity where the domain name at issue incorporated the complainant's mark and added only a hyphen plus the abbreviation "en". In this regard Complainant cites as an example the decision in United Services Automobile Association v. Gavino Beretta, FA 2206009 (Forum Mar. 18, 2026) (finding the domain name <en-usaa.com> confusingly similar to the trademark USAA).

 

Complainant contends that it follows likewise that the addition of the element "en-" does not dispel the recognizable presence of Complainant's UDEMY mark in the disputed domain name.

 

Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that

upon information and belief, Complainant does not have any rights in the term UDEMY, the trademark UDEMY or the corresponding disputed domain name which was registered on April 21, 2026; the disputed domain name was registered more than a decade after Complainant first began using the UDEMY trade name and mark; Complainant can find no evidence of Respondent having a common-law trademark or service mark, or registered trademark or service mark, or trademark or service mark rights or applications anywhere in the world for the mark UDEMY;

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant; Respondent has never been licensed or permitted to use Complainant's mark or any domain names incorporating the fanciful UDEMY mark; Complainant is not commonly known by the UDEMY mark, see Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding no legitimate interest where the respondent wasn't known by the disputed domain name and complainant had never authorized the respondent to use its brands or to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in a domain name registration); there is no recognized meaning for a word "udemy"; indeed the results of browser searches carried out by Complainant for the word point only back to Complainant as shown in a screen capture of a search result exhibited in an annex to the Complaint;

Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name;

as illustrated in the screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, which is exhibited in annex to the Complaint, Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name to pass itself off either as the Complainant or as an authorized provider of Complainant's educational services, when neither is true.

 

Complainant adds that notwithstanding that Respondent never been licensed or permitted to use Complainant's mark or any domain names incorporating the fanciful UDEMY mark and that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, nonetheless Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that promotes services that compete with Complainant's services.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent is clearly using the disputed domain name as part of a scheme to trick and mislead consumers into thinking it is authorized or affiliated with Complainant, when that is simply not true.

 

Of note, as shown in the exhibited screen captures Respondent's website contain no statements clarifying that it not an authorized distributor or licensee of Complainant, but instead it falsely claims a copyright notice attributed to Complainant, and includes a "Terms of Service for Udemy" that is not Complainant's actual Terms of Use and in fact contains misleading statements and representations to other unrelated entities;

 

Complainant concludes that such use of the disputed domain name by Respondent does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per 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 in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used on bad faith, arguing that Complainant's UDEMY mark, to which the disputed domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar, has been registered and used since 2012, approximately 14 years before the disputed domain name was registered.

 

Complainant submits that it has an extensive reputation and goodwill in the UDEMY mark: its UDEMY platform has over 84 million learners and enables its global cohort of 90,000+ instructors to offer their expertise to individuals and organizations around the globe.

 

Furthermore, Complainant offers an employee training and development platform with subscription access to more than 29,000 courses that more than 50% of the Fortune 100 use to help their employees learn new skills.

 

Additionally, as shown in the screen captures exhibited in the annexes to the Complaint, Complainant's social media accounts have millions of followers.

 

Complainant adds that it has partnered with the Major League Soccer team the San Jose Earthquakes as Official Learning and Skills Partner and Official Training Jersey Partner and it UDEMY mark appears prominently on the San Jose Earthquakes pre-match jerseys.

 

Complainant contends that given that Respondent registered the disputed domain name which includes the UDEMY mark, it follows that the registrant had both actual and constructive knowledge of the UDEMY marks prior to registering the disputed domain name; therefore the registration of the disputed domain name was made in bad faith.

 

Complainant further argues that, as shown in the screen capture exhibited in the annex to the Complaint, Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's UDEMY mark on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves falsely creates the impression that Respondent either is the Complainant or is an authorized provider of Complainant's services.

 

The exhibited screen capture shows that Respondent's website, in fact, falsely claims a copyright notice attributed to Complainant, and includes a "Terms of Service for Udemy" that is not Complainant's actual Terms of Use and in fact contains misleading statements and representations to other unrelated entities, and such conduct is emblematic of bad faith. In this regard Complainant cites the decision in Clearwire Communications LLC v. Yvan Edwards, WIPO Case No. D2010-1440 ("Respondent is using the mark at issue to resolve to a web site at which… Complainant's logo and marks are prominently displayed such that a user would believe that he was on a web site sanctioned by Complainant.").

 

Additionally it is submitted that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves even makes unauthorized use of a highly similar version of Complainant's stylized logo mark and purple coloring scheme, and visitors to the Respondent's website will believe that it is in fact Complainant's official site given the numerous and extensive use of Complainant's marks.

 

Moreover, Respondent's website contains no statements clarifying that Respondent is not associated with or licensed by Complainant. In this regard Complainant refers to the decision in Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Joshua Blakeley / JBL Digital Marketing, FA 2126584 (Forum Dec. 24, 2024) ("It was open to the Respondent to promote its skills and abilities in a legitimate manner and with a suitable disclaimer where necessary, but it was not open to it to use the Complainant's trademark to promote its own business…").

 

In conclusion Complainant submits that the evidence shows that Respondent has attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of their website or of a product or service on their website or location; and such use of the disputed domain name constitutes use on bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant carries on business providing online learning and related products and services using the service mark UDEMY for which it holds a portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations, including the following for which it has provided evidence in the form of a registration certificate:

·       United States registered trademark UDEMY, registration number 4,314,406, registered on the Principal Register on April 2, 2013, for goods in international classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42.

 

Complainant carries on an Internet based business and has an established web presence with 8.5 million followers on Facebook.

 

The disputed domain name is <en-udemy.com> was registered on April 21, 2026, and resolves to a website on which Respondent purports to create the impression that it is owned by or associated with Complainant; and uses Complainant's marks in a manner which Respondent is purporting to impersonate Complainant, purporting to offer directly competing services.

 

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

 

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 has provided uncontested evidence to prove that on the balance of probabilities it has rights in the UDEMY mark established by its ownership of the trademark registrations described above, and at common law rights through use in its business providing online learning and related products and services.

 

Complainant's uncontested submission is that its UDEMY online platform has 84 million learners and enables its global cohort of 90,000 instructors to offer their expertise to individuals and organizations around the globe.

 

The disputed domain name <en-udemy.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the descriptive element "en" and a hyphen.

 

It is well established that once a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety, the complainant is entitled to succeed in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)

 

Complainant's mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name and the addition of neither the element "en" nor the hyphen prevents a finding of confusing similarity. As Complainant has submitted the element "en" is commonly used on the Internet to identify English language content on a website, and therefore it does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark.

 

Furthermore, in the circumstances of this proceeding, the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name. and therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's service mark.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <en-udemy.com> is confusingly similar to the UDEMY mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 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, Complainant has exhibited a screen capture of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves which presents itself as being Complainant's website or associated with Complainant, which is not true. Furthermore, Respondent has made no attempt at a clarification to inform internet visitors that the website which Respondent has created and maintains has no association with Complainant. Additionally, the exhibited screen capture shows that Respondent is purporting to offer competing services under Complainant's brand. Such use cannot establish rights or legitimate interests.

 

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

The disputed domain name was registered on April 21, 2026, long after Complainant began use of the mark and long after Complainant established its goodwill in the UDEMY mark. The uncontested evidence is that at the time the disputed domain name was registered, Complainant had 8.5 million followers on Facebook.

 

UDEMY is a very distinctive mark and is the dominant element of the disputed domain name.  So it must be more than coincidence that the registrant of the disputed domain name chose to register Complainant's mark in its entirety in combination with the element "en" and a hyphen to form the disputed domain name; and it is improbable that the disputed domain name would have been chosen and registered without the registrant's actual knowledge of Complainant and its online learning business.

 

This finding is confirmed by the fact that Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website on which it purports to impersonate Complainant, use Complainant's mark without license or consent, and purport to offer services that directly compete with those offered by Complainant.

 

The Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to target and take predatory advantage of the Complainant's mark and its goodwill in the mark.

 

The uncontested evidence is also that Respondent's presents itself as Complainant or at least associated with Complainant on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.

 

Given that the disputed domain name is almost identical to Complainant's UDEMY mark the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a website address in an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website or location.

 

Such use of the disputed domain name constitutes use on 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, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <en-udemy.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

_________________________________________

 

James Bridgeman, Panelist

Dated: August 21, 2026