HeyGen Technology Inc. v Huapeng Sima, Btows

WIPO Case No. DAI2025-0010

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

HeyGen Technology Inc. v. Huapeng Sima, Btows

Case No. DAI2025-0010

1. The Parties

The Complainant is HeyGen Technology Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by

Coates IP, United States.

The Respondent is Huapeng Sima, Btows, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <heygem.ai> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 21, 2025. connection with the disputed domain name. On March 26, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

(the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 27, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 16, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 17, 2025.

The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on April 24, 2025. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

page 2

4. Factual Background

The Complainant has, since September 2022, offered artificial intelligence video and image generation services under its HEYGEN mark, allowing users to create photorealistic avatars using the likeness of real people.

The Complainant offers its services from its website hosted at its domain name <heygen.com>, which was registered in 2015 and has been used by the Complainant since at least March 2023. The Complainant also owns the domain name <heygen.ai>, registered on February 15, 2023.

The Complainant’s HEYGEN mark is registered in various jurisdictions, including United Kingdom Trademark
Registration No. UK00003940036 HEYGEN in classes 9, and 42, having a registration date of October 27,
2023.

The disputed domain name was registered on December 10, 2023, and currently redirects to a GitHub repository for a project entitled “GuijiAI/HeyGem.ai”. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website entitled “HeyGem”, featuring a logo that is highly

similar to the Complainant’s previous logo, ostensibly for an artificial intelligence powered video avatar

generation service.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith in order to attract Internet users for the Respondent’s commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the HEYGEN mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. A domain name which consists of an obvious misspelling of the trademark, as in this case, is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. Here, the disputed domain name differs by one letter from the Complainant’s mark, specifically, the last letter of the

page 3

disputed domain name is “m”, and the last letter of the Complainant’s mark is “n”. This does not render the

Complainant’s mark unrecognizable. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

For the reasons discussed in relation to bad faith below, namely the composition of the disputed domain name and the content hosted therein, it is likely that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to take advantage of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances cannot represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and cannot confer rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

For the following reasons, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent registered and
has used the disputed domain name to take advantage of the confusion with the Complainant’s mark for the
Respondent’s commercial gain, falling squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The disputed domain name’s erstwhile website featured a logo that was highly similar to the Complainant’s previous logo in respect of distinctive design elements. Considered along with the facts that the disputed domain name has been used for a service that is directly competitive with the Complainant, the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s inherently distinctive mark and prior domain name <heygen.ai>, and the disputed domain name has no descriptive or generic meaning in the context of the Respondent’s services that could conceivably point to its good faith adoption, this is unlikely to have been a coincidence. It is clear that the Respondent had the Complainant in mind when registering and using the disputed domain name.

The Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present proceeding where an explanation is certainly called for. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3.

page 4

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <heygem.ai> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Jeremy Speres/
Jeremy Speres
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2025