Reveai.org, Reve.vision

The timeline behind reveai.org

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Reve AI, Inc. v. boring domain Claim Number: FA2506002162979 PARTIES Complainant is Reve AI, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by John Paul Oleksiuk of Cooley LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is boring domain ("Respondent"), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <reveai.org> and <reve.vision>, registered with Dynadot Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Petter Rindforth as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 26, 2025; Forum received payment on June 26, 2025. On June 29, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <reveai.org> and <reve.vision> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On July 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 22, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@reveai.org and postmaster@reve.vision. Also on July 2, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides innovative AI-powered tools to support visual content creators at the domain <reve.art>. The REVE AI Platform has been available to consumers since at least as early as February 5, 2025, and the launch created immediate buzz and attention in the media and social platforms. Despite the fact that the REVE AI Platform has only recently become available to consumers, Complainant's REVE AI Platform has already become widely well-known in the software industry, and is uniquely associated with Complainant. Complainant has approximately 500,000 registered users on the REVE AI Platform and has raised significant capital from its investors. In the wake of the remarkable success of the REVE AI Platform, and in order to protect the brand Complainant worked so hard to develop, on March 27, 2025, Complainant filed a federal trademark application for REVE. Complainant's Application is currently awaiting examination by the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Because Complainant is aware of several third parties attempting to appropriate the REVE trademark and claiming to offer identical and overlapping goods and services, Complainant has filed a Petition to Make Special under 37 C.F.R. § 2.146 to expedite the examination of Complainant's Application. The disputed domain names entirely incorporate Complainant's REVE trademark, and include only the additional generic term "AI" and/or a gTLD. The disputed domain names are thus confusingly similar to Complainant's REVE trademark. Given that Respondent obtained the disputed domain names a mere month after Complainant launched its platform, it is clear that Respondent intends to trade on Complainant's goodwill and create the misimpression that the entities are affiliated through the use of Complainant's trademark and branding. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Disputed Domains. Respondent made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before Complainant launched the REVE AI Platform on February 5, 2025. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names; and Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain names. The disputed domain names are being used to falsely advertise AI image generator services in connection with the REVE AI Platform, prominently displaying the REVE trademark thereby impersonating or falsely suggesting an association with Complainant. Both of the disputed domain names utilize the image of a halfmoon, which was Complainant's codename for the REVE AI Platform before its official unveiling. Complainant's REVE AI Platform started receiving widespread press just prior to the registration dates of the disputed domain names by Respondent. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the following pending U.S. trademark application: No. 99106761 REVE (word), filed on March 27, 2025, with first use in commerce date of February 5, 2025, and covering services in Intl Class 42. The disputed domain name <reveai.org> was registered on March 21, 2025, and the disputed domain name <reve.vision> was registered on March 22, 2025. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar As noted by Complainant, the Complainant has no registered trademark rights for REVE. The question is therefore if the Complainant may have unregistered trademark rights. To establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, a complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services. For more traditional trademarks, it takes some time and effort in sale and marketing to establish clear unregistered rights. In trademarks basically used for online services, common law or unregistered rights can be reality much faster, due to their global Internet presence. The Complainant show use and media recognition since March 24, 2025 and March 25, 2025. The Panel is therefore willing to accept that Complainant has unregistered trademark rights since at least March 24, 2025. The disputed domain name <reve.vision> is identical to Complainant's trademark REVE. The disputed domain name <reveai.org> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark REVE, only adding the letters AI which is part of the Complainant's company name. Therefore, the Panel find the disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The fact that both domain names were registered before Complainant filed for the trademark REVE has no importance on the confusingly similar aspect, but will be further discussed when it comes to "Bad Faith" below. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <reveai.org> and/or <reve.vision> domain names. Specifically, Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and Respondent is not a licensee or authorized to use Complainant's REVE trademark. Where a response is absent, the WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "boring domain" and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the REVE trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <reveai.org> and <reve.vision> domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain names to falsely advertise AI image generator services in connection with the Complainant's REVE AI Platform, falsely suggesting an association with Complainant. Using a complainant's trademark in a disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's own website and give the impression of affiliation between the parties may not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Complainant provides screenshots of both the disputed domain name's resolving webpages, which offer similar services and is using the Complainant's trademark to further falsely indicate some kind of connection with Complainant. Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent's use of the disputed domains does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith As noted above, both disputed domain names are registered before the Complainant had even filed for its trademark REVE. However, even domain registrations filed prior to a complainant's trademark registration rights can be registered in bad faith, depending on the circumstances. Here, the Panel notes the following: (i) The Complainant started to use the REVE trademark around 6 weeks before Respondent registered the disputed domain names (ii) The <reveai.org> domain name includes the Complainant's trademark, together with the letters AI, thereby clearly referring also to the Complainant's company/business name, and services (iii) The <reve.vision> domain name is identical to the Complainant's unregistered trademark (iv) Both disputed domain names are linked to web site/s offering similar services as Complainant (v) Both connecting web sites uses the Complainant's unregistered trademark visually and are graphically similar (vi) The Respondent is registered in USA, the same country as Complainant, further indicating that the identity and similarity to Complainant's rights is no coincidence (vii) Complainant has failed to respond to the Complainant's complaint, thereby chosen to not file any arguments or evidence against Complainant's conclusions. Considering all facts above, the Panel find that Respondent registered and use the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) or (iv). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <reveai.org> and <reve.vision> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Petter Rindforth, Panelist Dated: August 6, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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