Kiro.tools

The timeline behind kiro.tools

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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Yeevin Cai Claim Number: FA2508002170296 PARTIES Complainant is Amazon Technologies, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Yeevin Cai ("Respondent"), China. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <kiro.tools>, registered with Spaceship, 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 8, 2025; Forum received payment on August 8, 2025. On August 11, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <kiro.tools> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 August 11, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 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@kiro.tools. Also on August 11, 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 September 3, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant, a leading global retailer and operator of Amazon Web Services (AWS), launched KIRO on July 14, 2025, as an integrated development environment (IDE) designed to simplify work with AI agents. Complainant's commercial use of KIRO from July 14, 2025, together with broad global media coverage, has established common law trademark rights and secondary meaning for purposes of the Policy. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it fully incorporates Complainant's KIRO trademark in its entirety, adding only the gTLD ".tools." ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant granted Respondent any license or authorization to use Complainant's mark in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the disputed domain name being used for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose. Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently using "Kiro Tools" in the masthead logo, footer logo, copyright legend, and elsewhere. There are no disclaimers, no other indications of source, and no other efforts to distinguish Respondent from Complainant. Respondent is providing unauthorized executable downloads purporting to be Complainant's Kiro software. Using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's KIRO trademark to distribute unidentified and potentially malicious software downloads is also not a legitimate or bona fide use. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's registration of the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and business constitutes bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name two days after Complainant's widely publicized KIRO IDE launch, evidencing opportunistic bad faith. By adopting a confusingly similar domain name, using similar branding and color palette, and omitting any source identification or disclaimers, Respondent creates the false impression of affiliation with Complainant. Respondent's using the domain to promote its own and/or Complainant's genuine software/services and redirecting it to Complainant's website further demonstrates unfair and opportunistic commercial benefit. B. Respondent Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS 1. The disputed domain name was registered on July 16, 2025. 2. Complainant has established common law rights in KIRO that predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that prominently displays "Kiro Tools" in the masthead logo. The landing page for the disputed domain name is titled "Kiro Tools, Download Kiro without Joining [sic] Waitlist," and displays "Kiro Tools" in the masthead logo, footer logo, copyright legend, and elsewhere. The landing page for the disputed domain name features a white, purple, and black color palette that imitates Complainant's color palette. 4. There are no disclaimers, no indications of source, and no efforts to distinguish Respondent from Complainant. Respondent's "Privacy Policy" and "Terms of Service" links resolve to error messages. 5. Respondent provides unauthorized executable downloads purporting to be Complainant's KIRO software. 6. The landing page for the disputed domain name includes links to Complainant's official website <kiro.dev>. 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 Complainant asserts common law rights in the KIRO mark. The Panel notes that, to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that its mark has become a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with Complainant's goods and/or services. The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the KIRO mark predating the registration of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), based on the following: (i) On July 14, 2025, Complainant's AWS business launched KIRO, an integrated development environment (IDE) designed to simplify the developer experience when working with artificial intelligence (AI) agents on software development projects. With KIRO, developers can "vibe code" through features enabling collaboration with agents on a detailed plan and automatic triggering of agent workflows for tasks such as running tests or generating documentation. (ii) On July 14 and 15, 2025, major publications worldwide reported on Complainant's international KIRO launch, including CNBC, Forbes, GeekWire, Neowin, PCMag, Tech Radar, The Register, and VentureBeat. (iii) Major publications had also reported on the KIRO name prior to launch, including Business Insider on May 6, 2025, India Today, Semiconductors Insight, and TechCrunch on May 7, 2025, Medium on May 8, 2025, and AI Insider and International Business Times on May 9, 2025. Next, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <kiro.tools> is confusingly similar to its mark, as it fully incorporates Complainant's KIRO trademark in its entirety, adding only the gTLD ".tools." The Panel agrees and finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Yeevin Cai" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently featuring the KIRO mark and offering competing products, and linking to Complainant's website under these circumstances is likewise not legitimate. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See hipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) ("The resolving webpages between Complainant's and Respondent's websites are virtually the same. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Forum Apr. 12, 2002) ("Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant's [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i)."). Redirecting the landing page of the disputed domain name to Complainant's website is likewise not legitimate. The Panel notes that Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage at the disputed domain name titled "Kiro Tools, Download Kiro without Joining [sic] Waitlist," and displays "Kiro Tools" in the masthead logo, footer logo, copyright legend, and elsewhere. The landing page for the disputed domain name features a white, purple, and black color palette that imitates Complainant's color palette. There are no disclaimers, no indications of source, and no efforts to distinguish Respondent from Complainant. Respondent's "Privacy Policy" and "Terms of Service" links resolve to error messages. Respondent provides unauthorized executable downloads purporting to be Complainant's KIRO software. The landing page for the disputed domain name includes links to Complainant's official website <kiro.dev>. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct such as passing off as Complainant and offering counterfeiting or competing products to those of Complainant does not constitute use of the disputed domain name in connection with 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). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case based on the foregoing. As Respondent has not filed a Response or otherwise attempted to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intent to impersonate Complainant or to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant. When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant, such conduct may constitute bad faith disruption of the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) ("finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where 'Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant'"). As noted, the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name is titled "Kiro Tools, Download Kiro without Joining [sic] Waitlist," and displays "Kiro Tools" throughout the site using a color palette imitating Complainant's. It lacks disclaimers or source identification, features broken "Privacy Policy" and "Terms of Service" links, provides unauthorized executable downloads purporting to be Complainant's KIRO software, and includes links to Complainant's official website <kiro.dev>. The Panel finds that such passing off activities disrupt Complainant's business. In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by diverting Internet users seeking Complainant to its website, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark and deceiving Internet users. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name two days after Complainant's widely publicized KIRO IDE launch, evidencing opportunistic bad faith. The Panel observes that in circumstances where the facts demonstrate that a respondent's intent in registering a domain name was to unfairly capitalize on a complainant's nascent, often unregistered, trademark rights, panels have found bad faith. Such situations include registrations occurring in the wake of significant media attention, e.g., in connection with a product launch or major event. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 3.8.2. The Panel notes that on July 14, 2025, major publications worldwide reported on Complainant's international KIRO launch. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 16, 2025, two days after Complainant launched the KIRO IDE and more than two months after public reporting of the name had commenced. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name only two days after the launch constitutes clear evidence of opportunistic bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <kiro.tools> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: September 5, 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.