Panel denies claim against dictionary .ai domain.
StayinFront, Inc., which operates an augmented reality platform marketed at augment.COM, has lost a cybersquatting case it filed against augment.AI. The panel found (pdf) this was a case of reverse domain name hijacking.
It’s the fourth time Deep Vision Architects, which owns the domain, has had to defend one of its .ai domains in a cybersquatting dispute. It has won all the cases, including ones involving clio.ai, sonata.ai, and sage.ai.
While StayInFront claimed trademark rights predating the domain’s registration, it did not provide evidence that its mark is well-known. The Respondent noted many other companies, including some in the AI space, use the term augment in their brand. These companies use the second level domain augment in TLDs such as .legal, .cfd, and .plus.
The panel found in favor of the Respondent on the issues of Rights or Legitimate Interests and Registration and Use in Bad Faith.
This is a good case to refer to when a Complainant argues that the asking price indicates bad faith. The domain owner is asking $5 million for the domain. However, the panel wrote:
The purchasing and sale of generic or descriptive domain names is a bona fide offering under the Policy so long as infringing or cybersquatting intent is not evident. Under such circumstances, an investor is entitled to set whatever price it likes for its offerings.
The Complainant pointed to cases in which panels did consider the asking price, but this panel noted that those cases all involved domains that could only apply to the Complainants. A dictionary term is different.
In finding reverse domain name hijacking, the panel wrote:
Complainant should have appreciated that a claim based on a trademark which was a dictionary word was not straightforward and as minimum required evidence of fame and reputation and that Respondent was in some way targeting or taking advantage of Complainant. No such evidence was provided. Complainant unreasonably ignored numerous previous UDRP decisions involving Respondent (see above) concerning analogous registrations of domain names using dictionary words. These prior decisions identified precisely the difficulties Complainant faced and what would need to be shown to bring a complaint which had any prospects of success. Accordingly Panel concludes this was a complaint which had no prospects of success according to facts available at the time of filing and which should not have been brought. Further, salient aspects of the complaint are based on bare allegations without any supporting evidence. For example, Complainant asserts, “Complainant filed its U.S. trademark application for AUGMENT on [application filing date], two months before the domain registration. Respondent therefore registered the domain with knowledge of Complainant’s rights.” [panel added emphasis]. The absence of any evidence to support this conclusory claim makes the complaint fatally deficient in this respect. Collectively these factors amount to RDNH.
Source: https://domainnamewire.com/
