Seduced-ai.io

The timeline behind seduced-ai.io

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 Undresso Media Group S.R.L. v. Varerijs Galics Case No. DIO2026-0040 1. The Parties The Complainant is Undresso Media Group S.R.L., Romania, represented by SCP Buju Stanciu & Asociații, Romania. The Respondent is Varerijs Galics, Latvia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <seduced-ai.io> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 6, 2026. On August 6, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 7, 2026, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 10, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 12, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO 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 August 13, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 2, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 4, 2026. The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on September 11, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background Since 2023, the Complainant has operated the Seduced AI platform, an online software-as-a-service offering that uses AI to generate pornographic images and videos, and which is accessible via a website at the domain name <seduced.com>. The Complainant owns United States of America trademark No. 7,576,838 for SEDUCED.AI, registered on November 26, 2024. The disputed domain name was registered on June 15, 2026. As of August 6, 2026, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that was branded “Seduced AI” and purported to offer pornographic-related AI services. I ts call-to -action buttons linked to a competitor of the Complainant at <luckylove.ai>. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters sent on July 14 and 31, 2026. 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. 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 1 (“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 entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, with the only difference being that the period is replaced by a hyphen. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, 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. 1 Although WIPO Overview 3.1 is directed to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), given the similarity between the UDRP and the Policy, it is appropriate to have regard to these principles except to the extent that the Policy diverges from the UDRP. page 3 Although the overall burden of proof is on the complainant, panels have recognised 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. 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. As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, and as further discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking the Complainant’s services. Such use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide. Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered or 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 or use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel considers that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. First, the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s mark, which is a non-obvious combination of the terms “seduced” and “ai, save for the substitution of the period in the mark with a hyphen in the disputed domain name. Second, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that creates the impression that it is associated with the Complainant, including by purporting to offer services that are identical or similar to th ose of the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent has not come forward to explain or defend its behaviour. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 4 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, <seduced-ai.io>, be transferred to the Complainant. /Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: September 25, 2026

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