{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-109071", "time_of_filling": "2026-10-12 13:07:52", "domain_names": [ "uyn.ai" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Slanařová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Marco Redini (Trerè Innovation S.r.l.)" ], "complainant_representative": "Avvocato Ivett Paulovics", "respondent": [ "Douglas Postek" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is an Italian company engaged in the development, manufacture and distribution of technical sportswear, footwear and related products. The Complainant launched its UYN brand in 2017 and markets its products internationally, including through its website at \"uynsports.com\", retail outlets, sponsorship arrangements and promotional activities.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant's evidence includes trademark registration records, information concerning its commercial activities, media coverage, sponsorship of national ski teams, social media presence and retail stores.<\/span><\/p>\n

The domain name was registered on May 7, 2025, with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the \"Registrar\").<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent is an individual residing in the United States. He maintains that he registered the domain name for an independent technology project named Universal Y Nexus, which he had begun developing before registering the domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The domain name has resolved to a Registrar-generated parking page displaying pay-per-click (\"PPC\") links, including links relating to the Complainant's products and competing sportswear products.<\/span><\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complaint<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant requests the transfer of the domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that it has established substantial rights and reputation in the UYN trademark through its international sportswear business, trademark registrations, retail activities, sponsorship arrangements and promotional efforts.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its UYN trademark, which is reproduced in its entirety.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant, has not been authorized to use its trademark and is not commonly known by the domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant relies on the domain name's use for a parking page displaying PPC links relating to UYN products and competing sportswear products. It submits that such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding bad faith, the Complainant relies on its longstanding trademark rights, the reputation of the UYN brand, the correspondence between the domain name and its trademark, and the trademark-related PPC advertising.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered and used the domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with its trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant also relies on the invitation to acquire or register the domain name displayed on the parking page and maintains that the Respondent cannot avoid responsibility for the advertising merely because the links may have been generated automatically by the Registrar or another third party.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant's Additional Submissions<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In its Additional Submissions, the Complainant disputes that the Respondent's evidence establishes an independent and legitimate reason for registering the domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant questions the evidentiary weight of the Respondent's selected ChatGPT conversation extracts, redacted code headers and other records, submitting that they do not sufficiently establish demonstrable preparations to use the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant maintains that the trademark-related PPC advertising remains significant irrespective of whether the Respondent selected the links or received advertising revenue.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant reiterates its allegations of bad faith and maintains its request for transfer.<\/span><\/p>\n

In its comments pursuant to Procedural Order No. 1, the Complainant submits that the Respondent's asserted inability to modify the parking page following restrictions imposed by GoDaddy during these proceedings does not alter the assessment of his rights or legitimate interests or of bad-faith registration and use. The Complainant maintains that the domain name had already displayed PPC advertising associated with its UYN trademark and products before the Complaint was filed, as shown in Annexes 15–18. It also relies on its screenshot dated November 2, 2026 (Supplemental Annex 1) as evidence that such advertising remained displayed on that date.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for automatically generated PPC links on the basis that they were selected by a third party or yielded no direct financial benefit, citing WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.5. It further argues that the Respondent's claimed restrictions during the proceedings do not excuse the earlier advertising. Subject to the Panel's discretion to admit the Respondent's November 3, 2026 evidence, the Complainant also challenges the Python file submitted on that date, noting the absence of independently verifiable evidence of its creation date or development history and disputing that it establishes demonstrable preparations to use the domain name before notice of the dispute. The Complainant maintains its request for transfer.<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Response<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent does not dispute the Complainant's trademark rights or the correspondence between the domain name and the letters UYN.<\/span><\/p>\n

He contends that he registered the domain name independently for a technology project named Universal Y Nexus. He expressly denies having heard of or looked at the Complainant’s company before the week in which he began addressing this dispute, and denies registering the domain name to target the Complainant or its trademark.<\/p>\n

The Respondent states that he began developing the underlying project on December 17, 2024. He explains that the name evolved during the course of the project, including from Universal Y Matrix to Universal Y Nexus.<\/span><\/p>\n

He provides extracts of conversations with ChatGPT, including exchanges purporting to date from January 31, 2025, together with subsequent development records, redacted code headers and domain registration records.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent states that his project concerns a proprietary physics solver and that he selected the \".ai\" extension because of the nature of his technology work. He does not claim that the project was a completed commercial service at the time of registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the parking page, the Respondent maintains that it resulted from the Registrar's default free-parking arrangements. He denies selecting the PPC links, receiving advertising revenue or intending to benefit from the Complainant's trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent acknowledges that he maintains a portfolio of domain names, some acquired for projects and others for speculative purposes. He states that his domain names were available through brokerage arrangements but denies setting an asking price for the domain name, authorizing an approach to the Complainant or registering the domain name for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or a competitor.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent's Additional Submissions<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

In his Additional Submissions, the Respondent reiterates his explanation for selecting Universal Y Nexus and provides further information concerning his project.<\/span><\/p>\n

He acknowledges limitations in the documentary evidence, including that some ChatGPT conversation extracts are selective and that portions of his code have been redacted.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent provides further material concerning the purported contemporaneous naming records, his domain portfolio, development activities and the parking arrangements. He also supplies an example of Python code which he states is associated with his project.<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding the parking page, the Respondent provides account information and screenshots which he maintains support his position that he did not select the PPC links and received no advertising revenue.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a further communication dated November 5, 2026, the Respondent describes a telephone conversation with GoDaddy concerning the removal of the advertising. He maintains that he wishes to replace the parking page with a neutral page but has been advised that restrictions associated with the dispute prevent him from making the necessary changes.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent acknowledges that his account of the telephone conversation has not been independently confirmed in writing.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent maintains that the domain name was registered for his independent technology project and requests that the Complaint be denied.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Panel does not consider it necessary to make a finding under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, for the reasons set out below.<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has not, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n

Additional Submissions and Procedural Order No. 1<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Following the filing of the Complaint and Response, both Parties submitted Additional Submissions.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Policy and Rules do not provide an automatic right to file Additional Submissions. Paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules confer discretion on the Panel to determine their admissibility.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paragraph 10(b) of the Rules requires the Panel to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Paragraph 10(c) requires the Panel to ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition, while paragraph 10(d) provides that the Panel shall determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n

Paragraph 12 of the Rules permits the Panel, in its sole discretion, to request further statements or documents from either Party.<\/span><\/p>\n

As reflected in section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (\"WIPO Overview 3.1\"), unsolicited supplemental submissions are generally discouraged unless specifically requested by the panel. Their admission is a matter for the panel's discretion, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case and the requirements of procedural fairness.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the present case, the Parties' Additional Submissions address matters relevant to the determination of the Complaint, particularly the Respondent's asserted independent adoption of UYN and the circumstances surrounding the PPC advertising. Both Parties expressly requested that their Additional Submissions be considered.<\/span><\/p>\n

On November 5, 2026, the Respondent submitted further information concerning his communications with GoDaddy and his asserted inability to modify the parking page associated with the domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

On November 6, 2026, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1. Without making any determination at that stage concerning the admissibility or evidentiary weight of the Parties' Additional Submissions, the Panel invited the Complainant, in the interests of procedural fairness, to comment specifically on the Respondent's November 5, 2026 submission within three calendar days of notification of the Order.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also on November 6, 2026, the Complainant filed comments pursuant to Procedural Order No. 1, addressing the Respondent's November 5, 2026 submission and maintaining its request for transfer of the domain name.<\/p>\n

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the Additional Submissions, the Parties' respective requests that they be considered, and the opportunity afforded to and exercised by the Complainant to respond to the Respondent's most recent submission, the Panel determines, in the exercise of its discretion under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, to admit and consider the Additional Submissions, including the Complainant's comments pursuant to Procedural Order No. 1.<\/p>\n

The Panel emphasizes that the admission of these submissions does not imply acceptance of the factual assertions contained in them. The Panel has assessed their relevance and evidentiary weight together with the remainder of the record.<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Claire Kowarsky" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-11-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has established rights in the UYN trademark, including through the following registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n