DECISION

 

Pool Brain, Inc. v. Dan Epple

Claim Number: FA2608002240233

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Pool Brain, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mario C. Vasta of Fennemore Craig, P.C., Arizona, USA. Respondent is Dan Epple ("Respondent"), Indiana, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <poolbrain.ai>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

PANEL

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

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 19, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <poolbrain.ai> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 August 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@poolbrain.ai. Also on August 24, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. However, Respondent did send an email to Forum, see below.

 

On September 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it owns and utilizes the POOL BRAIN mark to identify, among other things, its downloadable and non-downloadable computer software and mobile applications used by professionals and businesses in the field of swimming pool maintenance and servicing. Complainant has used the domain name <poolbrain.com> since 2018 to market its goods and services. Complainant asserts rights in the mark POOL BRAIN through its registration in the United States in 2025, filing date October 2, 2024.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its POOL BRAIN mark as it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the ".ai" country-code top-level domain ("ccTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website purports to offer goods and services similar to those offered by Complainant – namely, software related to swimming pool maintenance and service.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as the resolving website purports to offer competing goods and services. 

 

B. Respondent

It its email to Forum Respondent states, in operative part: "I am willing to transfer poolbrain.ai to Pool Brain, Inc. and bring this matter to a close."  

 

Respondent also states:

PoolBrain.ai was conceived as a broad artificial-intelligence model and knowledge system covering all aspects of the swimming-pool industry, including construction, renovation, equipment, water chemistry, coatings, service, business operations, technical information, and software integrations. The name described the concept of an AI "brain" for swimming-pool knowledge. It was not intended to represent, copy, or serve as an extension of Pool Brain's field-service management software platform.

 

I did not register or use poolbrain.ai to impersonate Pool Brain, divert its customers, disrupt its business, or create a false affiliation.

 

The only time I became aware that someone might have confused the two businesses, I immediately and clearly explained that PoolBrain.ai and PoolBrain.com were separate initiatives with different purposes and no affiliation.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.

 

See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <poolbrain.ai> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: September 15, 2026