Polybuzz.cc

The timeline behind polybuzz.cc

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.

UDRP Decision: Claim Number FA2607002235545 DECISION Cloud Whale Interactive Technology LLC v. Xun Cai Claim Number: FA2607002235545 PARTIES Complainant is Cloud Whale Interactive Technology LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Alexis Crawford Douglas and RiKaleigh Omosheyin of K&L Gates LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Xun Cai ("Respondent"), New South Wales, Australia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <polybuzz.cc> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), 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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum on July 28, 2026; Forum received payment on July 28, 2026. On July 30, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <polybuzz.cc> 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"). Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on August 4, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. On August 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 2026 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@polybuzz.cc. Also on August 4, 2026, 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 August 25, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 Complainant alleges: That it is a technology company developing conversational artificial intelligence products, whose principal product is POLYBUZZ, an AI character chat platform offered on the web and through mobile applications, and that it has used the POLYBUZZ mark continuously in commerce for those services, operating the platform at <polybuzz.ai>. That it owns common law rights in the POLYBUZZ mark arising from that use, evidenced by the platform's user numbers, traffic, downloads and reviews, advertising expenditure and revenue, third-party recognition, and search engine results associating the term with Complainant. Complainant also holds six pending United States trademark applications for POLYBUZZ and POLYBUZZ & Design. That the Disputed Domain Name <polybuzz.cc> is confusingly similar to the POLYBUZZ mark, which it incorporates in its entirety, the ".cc" country-code top-level domain being disregarded under the first element. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by it, and Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the POLYBUZZ mark. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name uses the mark to offer AI chatbot services of the kind Complainant offers, and directs visitors onward to a third-party website presenting adult content, 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). That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, with knowledge of Complainant's rights, in order to disrupt Complainant's business and to attract Internet users to the resolving website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the POLYBUZZ mark, and to associate that mark with adult-oriented content, contrary to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds as follows. Complainant is a Delaware technology company, organized on December 6, 2022, that develops conversational artificial-intelligence software. Its principal product is POLYBUZZ, an AI character chat platform, offered on the web and through iOS and Android applications, on which users converse with and create AI characters. Complainant operates the platform at <polybuzz.ai>, a domain name the WHOIS record in evidence shows was created on October 17, 2024. Complainant holds no trademark registration. The United States Patent and Trademark Office records in evidence show that its six applications for the POLYBUZZ and POLYBUZZ & Design marks, Serial Nos. 98788730, 98788731, 98827866, 98827867, 98827868 and 98827869, were filed in October 2024 on an intent-to-use basis and that each remains pending. The status records in evidence show publication for opposition on June 17, 2025, Notices of Allowance on August 12, 2025, and, as of May 28, 2026, a non-final Office Action issued following review of the Statements of Use; those records recite first use of the mark on October 7 and October 30, 2024. The Declaration of Di Han in Support of Complaint, dated July 23, 2026 (the "Complainant's Declaration"), executed by Complainant's Operations Director, attests that the POLYBUZZ platform launched, and the mark was first used, in November 2024, and that the mark has been used continuously since. The Amended Complaint elsewhere gives the first-use date as November 2025; the Panel adopts November 2024, corroborated by the October 17, 2024 creation of <polybuzz.ai> and the first-use recitals in the USPTO records, and on either date use of the mark preceded the creation of the Disputed Domain Name. It further attests that, as of June 2026, the platform had more than 6 million daily active users and a library of more than 20 million user-created characters; that the website at <polybuzz.ai> received more than 530 million visits between March 2025 and May 2026; that the mobile application has been downloaded more than 50 million times and has drawn over 1 million user reviews on Google Play; that Complainant has spent $10 million advertising the platform and earned over $20 million in revenue under the mark; and that POLYBUZZ was ranked by Andreessen Horowitz among the Top 50 generative AI web products and mobile applications. Search results in the record show that a Google query for "polybuzz" returns Complainant's website and its Google Play and App Store listings above all else. On the uncontested record, the Panel accepts this evidence. The Complainant's Declaration also attests to instances of consumer confusion, but that instrument is captioned in a different dispute and the confusion it describes concerns the domain name <polybuzze.com>, not the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel makes no finding of actual confusion arising from the Disputed Domain Name, and none is necessary to the disposition. The WHOIS record in evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on March 6, 2026 and was registered through Spaceship, Inc. behind the "Withheld for Privacy ehf" privacy service in Reykjavik, Iceland. The Registrar's verification of July 30, 2026 discloses the underlying registrant as Xun Cai of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia, and confirms that the registration agreement is in English. Timestamped screenshots in the record, captured on June 24, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") branded "PolyBuzz AI" and offering the service Complainant offers under its mark, namely AI character chat and roleplay. The Respondent's Website is headed "Chat with 20M+ AI Characters," matching the character-library figure Complainant publishes for its own platform, and tells visitors that "PolyBuzz AI lets you create, chat, and roleplay with millions of AI characters." It advertises a custom character creator, voice interaction and AI memory, displays user testimonials attributed to named individuals, and carries Terms of Service and a Privacy Policy each dated March 7, 2026, the day after the Disputed Domain Name was created. Those Terms state that "The copyright owner of PolyBuzz AI is polybuzz.cc." The Respondent's Website offers no chat service of its own. On the uncontested record, corroborated by the landing page captured in evidence, its "Start Chatting Free" and "Get Started Free" buttons take the visitor instead to <candy.ai>, a third-party service operated by EverAI Limited of Malta that supplies adult "AI Girlfriend" and "AI Boyfriend" companions and displays sexually suggestive images of women. The landing address captured in the record carries referral-tracking parameters, from which the Panel infers that Respondent passes the diverted traffic on for a commission. Complainant offers its services only at <polybuzz.ai> and through the mobile application marketplaces; it does not offer adult companion services, and it neither authorized the registration of the Disputed Domain Name nor approved the content of the Respondent's Website. Respondent did not file a Response and is in default. 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 Overview 3.1 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 relies on no trademark registration. Its six United States applications remain pending, and a pending application does not of itself establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Policy, however, requires no registration: unregistered rights suffice where the complainant shows that its mark has become a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with the complainant or its goods or services. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.3; Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) does not require a trademark registration where the complainant establishes common law rights in its mark); Goepfert v. Rogers, FA 861124 (Forum Jan. 17, 2007) ("[T]here is no particular amount of evidence required in order to establish common law rights."). POLYBUZZ is a coined term with no dictionary meaning. On the evidence found above of continuous use since November 2024, the scale of use, the investment and revenue under the mark, and the third-party recognition and search results, the Panel finds on the uncontested record that POLYBUZZ has become a distinctive identifier associated with Complainant, and that Complainant holds common law rights in the mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the POLYBUZZ mark in its entirety, without addition or alteration. The ".cc" country-code top-level domain is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in the comparison. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) Complainant bears the initial burden of making out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, whereupon the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence that it has such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Registrar's verification identifies the registrant as Xun Cai, and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has ever been known as "PolyBuzz." Complainant has never licensed or authorized Respondent to use the POLYBUZZ mark. See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (respondent not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the WHOIS lists an unrelated personal name and the complainant has not authorized use of its mark). The assertion on the Respondent's Website that "The copyright owner of PolyBuzz AI is polybuzz.cc" adds nothing: a registrant does not become commonly known by a domain name by announcing on it that the name owns the brand. Respondent's established use of the Disputed Domain Name is to operate the Respondent's Website, which takes Complainant's mark as its own name and presents itself as an AI character chat platform of the kind Complainant supplies under that mark. Offering, or purporting to offer, the complainant's own line of services under the complainant's mark 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). See Guitar Center, Inc. v. Eveline Simon, FA 2150637 (Forum May 14, 2025) (website purporting to offer products of the kind the complainant also offers is neither a bona fide offering under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)). The onward diversion compounds the point. A visitor who acts on the invitation to begin chatting is delivered not to a chat service but to <candy.ai>, an unrelated adult companion service, on an address bearing referral parameters. Using a confusingly similar domain name to deliver Internet users to adult-oriented content unconnected with the complainant is likewise not a bona fide offering or a legitimate fair use. See Innisfree Corporation v. qwe / qwe qwe, FA 2216387 (Forum May 28, 2026) (diversion of Internet users to a website displaying explicit adult content unrelated to the complainant is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate fair use). Complainant having made out an unrebutted prima facie case, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent created the Disputed Domain Name on March 6, 2026, some sixteen months after Complainant began using the POLYBUZZ mark and after the platform had reached the scale found above. The Respondent's Website settles the question of knowledge: it is built around Complainant's mark and, as found above, Complainant's own service description. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark, and in order to target them. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) (actual knowledge suffices to establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and may be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the respondent's use of the domain name). Complainant also invites a presumption of bad faith from constructive notice arising out of registration on the Principal Register; Complainant holds no registration, and the Panel makes no finding of constructive notice, actual knowledge being established on the record. As to use, the Respondent's Website attracts Internet users searching for Complainant's platform by creating a likelihood of confusion with the POLYBUZZ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website, and then monetizes them by passing them to a third-party service on a referral-tracked address. That is bad faith within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent directed Internet users to a website mimicking the complainant's own so as to confuse users into believing the respondent is the complainant or is affiliated with it). The same conduct disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii): the traffic the Respondent's Website captures under Complainant's mark is traffic Complainant would otherwise receive. The destination adds tarnishment to diversion: as found above, users seeking Complainant's platform are delivered instead to sexually suggestive material under its own mark. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name behind a privacy service and has not answered in this proceeding. Nothing in the record admits of a good faith explanation. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and that Complainant has satisfied 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 <polybuzz.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: August 25, 2026 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.