Mistralvibe.com

The timeline behind mistralvibe.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION MISTRAL AI v. Glen Pearce, Redfox Labs Limited Case No. D2026-2263 1. The Parties The Complainant is MISTRAL AI, France, represented by Blanche Avocats, France. The Respondent is Glen Pearce, Redfox Labs Limited, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mistralvibe.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2026. On May 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 202, 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 (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 1, 2026, 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 amended Complaint on June 3, 2026. 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 June 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2026. 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, founded in 2023, is a European generative artificial intelligence company, specialising in developing and offering large language models and is considered one of the leading European based companies in the field. It offers an AI coding assistant under the name or mark “MISTRAL VIBE” which has gained significant reputation and is prominently displayed in Google search results. The Complainant owns various trade mark registrations for its MISTRAL AI mark, including French trade mark number 4970012 registered on November 10, 2023, and European Union trade mark number 018942618 registered on February 14, 2024. It owns various domain names incorporating the word “mistral” including <mistral.ai> from which it operates its official website, and also <mistral.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on March 11, 2025, which when publicly accessed, either at the time of filing this Complainant, or subsequently by the Panel, did not resolve to any active website. The Complainant has provided evidence that when accessed through a private browsing service using a virtual private network that the disputed domain name resolved in certain jurisdictions to a sponsored links parking page headed “mistralvibe.com”. 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 registered trade marks for MISTRAL AI or to its unregistered mark MISTRAL VIBE. The Complainant says that it has no link or association with the Respondent, that the Respondent owns no similar trade mark to MISTRAL AI, to MISTRAL or to MISTRAL VIBE and that the Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name or its MISTRAL AI trade marks. Therefore, says the Complainant, there is no justification for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name other than to potentially free ride on the Complainant’s reputation. Neither, contends the Complainant, is there a legitimate interest or a non-commercial or fair use being made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the registration of the disputed domain name is no coincidence as the Respondent must have known about the Complainant’s MISTRAL AI business and mark and sought to take unfair advantage of it. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s fraudulent intention in this regard is supported by various circumstances, including that the Respondent has sought to mask his identity and has not provided transparent address details, it uses an offshore British Virgin Islands corporate services address which is known for hosting a large number of shell companies and that Red Fox Labs is an Australian business name that has been cancelled. It also submits that the different configurations between countries of resolution of the disputed domain name to an unavailable page or to a parking page in private browsing mode is indicative that the Respondent may be attempting in certain jurisdictions to create the false impression that the disputed domain name is affiliated with, or authorised by, the Complainant. page 3 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the dominant element of the Complainant’s registered trade mark, the term “mistral” is recognisable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the word “vibe” instead of the abbreviation “ai” for artificial intelligence, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that in this case the replacement use of the additional word “vibe” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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 that 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 3.1, section 2.1. The Complainant has submitted that it has no link or association with the Respondent, that the Respondent owns no similar trade mark to MISTRAL AI, to MISTRAL or to VIBE and that the Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name, or its MISTRAL AI trade marks. The Complainant has also contended that there is no legitimate interest or non-commercial, or fair use of the disputed domain name being made by the Respondent, and in the circumstances of the degree of renown attaching to the Complainant’s business and trade mark that there is no justification for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name other than to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation. 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 page 4 demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. 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 notes that the disputed domain name was registered in March 2025 and well after the registration of the Complainant’s French and European Union trade marks. The MISTRAL AI mark has a high level of distinctiveness and there is evidence on the record that following the Complainant’s launch of its business in 2023 it enjoyed a very significant amount of media coverage in 2023 and in 2024. Considering also that the Complaint’s business had a substantial Internet presence and that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s unregistered mark for its MISTRAL VIBE coding assistant service, and confusingly similar to MISTRAL AI, it is more likely than not that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s business and marks when he registered the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including to a blank page as is the case here where a public browser is used to search for the disputed domain name) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes that considering the high level of distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s MISTRAL AI registered trade mark, the composition of the disputed domain name to mirror the name of the Complainant’s MISTRAL VIBE coding assistant service, the failure of the Respondent to provide any explanation for its registration of the disputed domain name and its apparent attempt to mask its identity, the Panel finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel notes that to the extent that there is also evidence of the disputed domain name resolving to a sponsored links parking page through a private browser service in certain jurisdictions, that in the circumstances this also amounts to evidence of registration and use in bad faith in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Using the disputed domain name incorporating the dominant element of the Complainant’s very well reputed MISTRAL AI mark to redirect Internet users to a third party sponsored links parking page, likely for commercial gain, fulfills the requirements of this section of the Policy and is evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, the Panel notes that while it does not consider that the Complainant’s submissions concerning the British Virgin Islands corporate services address or the cancellation of the Australian business name for Red Fox Labs are of any note, this does not affect the Panel’s finding on the basis set out above of the Respondents registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <mistralvibe.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alistair Payne/ Alistair Payne Sole Panelist Date: July 17, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.