HeyGen Technology Inc. v tian tao

WIPO Case No. D2025-1816

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

HeyGen Technology Inc. v. tian tao

Case No. D2025-1816

1. The Parties

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

IP LLP, United States.

The Respondent is tian tao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <heygencn.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 6, 2025. On May 7, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 8, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its

verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 9, 2025.

from the named Respondent (“Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot”) and contact information in the
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 May 13, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 3, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Andrew Brown K.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on June 6, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a company headquartered in California in the United States.

The Complainant was founded in 2020 and operates in the fields of video and image generation in artificial intelligence. Its services allow for users to create photo realistic avatars using the likeness of real people or a library of pre-made avatars and voices.

The Complainant adopted the HEYGEN trademark in 2020 and began use of it as early as September 2022.
The relevant rights of the Complainant comprise federal trademark applications in the United States of America
which have been allowed but not yet registered and more particularly the following trademarks (together the

HEYGEN Trademark).

Country	Mark	Registration No.	Class	Date of Application/Registration
United States	HEYGEN	97806408	9	Application Date: February 22, 2023 Date of Allowance: June 18, 2024
United States	HEYGEN	97979712	42	Application Date: February 22, 2023 Registration Date: March 11, 2025
United	HEYGEN	3940036	9 and 42	Registration Date: October 27, 2023
Kingdom (“UK”)
European	HEYGEN	018908079	9 and 42	Registration Date: December 26,
Union (“EU”)	2023

The Complainant owns the domain name <heygen.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 22, 2025. A website that purportedly offers competing digital image and avatar products and services under the HEYGEN mark has been operated at the disputed domain name.

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 is confusingly similar to its HEYGEN registration of the disputed domain name on March 22, 2025.

Trademark in which it claims registered and unregistered rights. The Complainant states that it adopted the

The Complainant relies on the allowed trademark applications in the United States for software products and services and trademark registrations in the UK, EU and other countries for software products and services that, it

page 3

states, are identical to or a highly related to the software products of it on the landing page located at the
disputed domain name.

The Complainant registered and operates its own domain name <heygen.com> which claims is nearly identical to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant relies on the fact that its HEYGEN Trademark is a coined term with no meaning in any language thus making it the strongest type of trademark. As to the letters “cn” found in the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that this is a common abbreviation for China. Further, asserts that the disputed domain name is still confusingly similar.

The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

It asserts that none of the circumstances present in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present:

(a)	the Respondent has no license from the Complainant;
(b)	the Respondent is not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name;
(c)	the website located at the disputed domain name provides overlapping and competing products and

services to those offered by the Complainant under its HEYGEN Trademark; and

(d) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any

trademark or service mark rights in the HEYGEN Trademark.

Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It states that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers competing digital image and avatar products and services under the HEYGEN mark. It claims that this constitutes a bad faith attempt to ride on the well-known status and fame of the Complainant’s HEYGEN Trademark.

The Complainant states that the Respondent’s website of the disputed domain name has an “About Us” page that identifies itself as the Complainant. The Complainant relies on this as demonstrating deceptive conduct designed to deceive consumers into believing that the Respondent is the Complainant.

The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name was registered so as to the prevent the

Complainant from registering it.

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.

page 4

The Panel finds that the Complainant’s HEYGEN Trademark is clearly 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.

Although the addition of other terms here, “cn” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for activities such as impersonation or passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

In the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith for the following reasons:

(a) The Complainant has clearly demonstrated that it has rights to the HEYGEN Trademark that predate

registration of the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant’s HEYGEN mark had established a
reputation at the date of registration of the disputed domain name as a result of use and promotion.

page 5

(b) The Respondent clearly knew of the Complainant’s HEYGEN Trademark and its reputation when it

registered the disputed domain name. This is evidenced by the fact that on the landing page of the disputed
domain name the Respondent claims to be the Complainant and provides the Complainant’s location details and
activities as its own. Further, the landing page uses a logo which is identical to the Complainant’s previous
logo.

The Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith for the following reasons:

(a) The Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name is being used to direct Internet

users who may be looking for the Complainant (and its established products and services) to a landing page that is not connected in any way with the Complainant. Further, as noted earlier, the landing pages (the “About Us”) page at the disputed domain name claim to be the Complainant. Internet users have the risk of being misled,

confused or deceived by these activities into believing that the disputed domain name (and the associated
website located there) are in fact the Complainant’s or are connected with the Complainant when this is not the

case. This results in Internet users being attracted away from the Complainant’s legitimate website.

(b) The Panel is entitled to draw and does draw an adverse inference on the failure of the Respondent to

respond to the Complaint and to the factual allegations made by the Complainant.

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 <heygencn.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Andrew Brown K.C./
Andrew Brown K.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: June 18, 2025