Metaphysic, Inc. v Bellamy Mailly

WIPO Case No. D2024-1920

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Metaphysic, Inc. v. Bellamy Mailly

Case No. D2024-1920

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Metaphysic, Inc., United Kingdom, represented by Lee & Hayes, PC, United States of

America (“United States”).

The Respondent is Bellamy Mailly, France.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <metaphysicai.org> is registered with IONOS SE (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 7, 2024. On

May 8, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 10, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (metaphysicai.org, REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 10, 2024, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on May 10, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the due date for Response was June 5, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 7, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on June 11, 2024. 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 corporation with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom dedicated to building AI content generation tools.

The Complainant is the owner of International Trademark Registration No. 1647566 registered on October received a Notice of Allowance on September 5, 2023.

29, 2021, for the standard character mark METAPHYSIC. On October 15, 2021, the Complainant also filed

The Complainant website is located at at the domain name <metaphysic.ai>, where it advertises and offers it services.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 7, 2023, and it resolves to a website that contains an identical copy of the Complainant website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

According to the Complainant, each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case.

First, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark registrations of the Complainant.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Third, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The

Complainant must satisfy that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 3

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 entirety of the mark is reproduced 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.

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.

The Panel further finds that the composition of the disputed domain name consisting of the Complainant’s

trademark plus the term “ai”, and the reproduction of the entire content of the Complainant website on the

website at the disputed domain name, carry a high risk of implied affiliation and effectively suggest

sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activities here, a claimed impersonation/passing
off, or other types of fraud 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.

The Panel considers that the record of this case reflects that:

page 4

- The disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to be the website of the Complainant;

- the Respondent website is using the same photos, videos, designs, and images from the Complainant’s

website without the Complainant authorization;

- the Respondent is in default.

UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for hosting a copycat version of a complainant’s

website constitutes bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4.

The Panel concludes that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet

users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark

as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a

product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. The paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is applied

here, and see also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

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 <metaphysicai.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Pablo A. Palazzi/

Pablo A. Palazzi

Sole Panelist
Date: June 20, 2024