Trayde.ai

The timeline behind trayde.ai

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 Trayd, Inc. v. 1&1 Internet Inc Claim Number: FA2608002240334 PARTIES Complainant is Trayd, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Yael Spiewak of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., New Jersey, USA. Respondent is 1&1 Internet Inc ("Respondent"), Pennsylvania, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <trayde.ai> ("Domain Name"), registered with InterNetX GmbH. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 18, 2026; Forum received payment on August 18, 2026. On August 28, 2026, InterNetX GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <trayde.ai> domain name is registered with InterNetX GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. InterNetX GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the InterNetX GmbH 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 September 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 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@trayde.ai. Also on September 9, 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 September 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Since 2023 Complainant has provided a mobile application and software services to the construction and contractor industries, which it does under the TRAYD mark and from its website at www.buildtrayd.com. Complainant has rights in the TRAYD mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 7,415,132, registered June 11, 2024). Respondent's <trayde.ai> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's TRAYD mark as it merely adds a letter "e" to the wholly incorporated mark to create a minor misspelling and adds the ".ai" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <trayde.ai> domain name. Respondent is not licensed to use Complainant's TRAYD mark and is not commonly known by the mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name for a website ("Respondent's Website") where it offers competing goods and services. Respondent registered and uses the <trayde.ai> domain name in bad faith. Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights at the time of registration as 32 days after the registration date the Respondent sought to register TRAYDE with the USPTO for services similar to those offered by the Complainant. The USPTO then issued an initial refusal of the TRAYDE mark on April 20, 2026 and Respondent then continued to use the Domain Name, thus demonstrating ongoing bad faith use of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, having failed to establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <trayde.ai>, has not established all required elements of its claim, and thus its complaint must be denied. 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 3.1 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 has rights in the TRAYD mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 7,415,132, registered June 11, 2024). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy."). The Panel finds that the <trayde.ai> is confusingly similar to the TRAYD mark as it is a minor misspelling of (caused by adding a letter to) the otherwise wholly incorporated TRAYD mark. Respondent also adds the ".ai" gTLD to the Domain Name. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (finding the respondent's <microssoft.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the complainant's MICROSOFT mark because they differ by only one letter, and "such a small alteration is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"); see also Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person / Privacy Protection, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has not made out such a prima facie case. Rather, there are factual and legal issues that are unresolved by the evidence presented and the Panel is of the opinion that this case is not one that is well suited for resolution under the Policy. See, e.g., AirMax Construçoes Aeronáuticas LTDA v. Richard Rofe / seamaxamerica.com, FA 1763605 (Forum Feb. 9, 2018) (finding serious issues of fact and law that "can be resolved only by the use of forensic powers which a Panel under the UDRP does not have, such as deposition evidence by cross examination, discovery…."). The Panel considers that this is a case in which two companies have chosen to operate businesses in the trades space under marks that are both clever misspellings of (but phonetically identical to) the word "trade". The evidence before the Panel that Respondent operates a functioning business under the TRAYDE mark and is not seeking to pass off as the Complainant is sufficient basis to find that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant submits that the Domain Name resolves to a website where Respondent offers competing mobile application and software services to the Complainant in the building and construction space. This evidence of the Respondent's Website, on its face, indicates that Respondent operates an entirely legitimate business, namely a service for finding subcontractors and other people in the trades, under the mark TRAYDE. The Respondent's Website does not either explicitly or (to the best of the Panel's knowledge, noting that the Complaint provides no evidence of the Complainant's use of the TRAYD mark) implicitly make any reference to Complainant or otherwise suggest an affiliation (other than the shared use of marks beginning with the letters "TRAYD" for similar services, which the Panel will address further below). Indeed, the evidence in the Complaint of the exact nature of the services Complainant offers from its website is sufficiently scant that the Panel is not certain that the parties are actually direct competitors. Finally, Complainant provides no evidence of any promotion of or reputation in its TRAYD mark; at its highest, the Complaint states that "over the past two years Trayd's website has received more than thirty thousand unique visitors"; a statement which does not provide clear evidence of the number of people in the industry aware of the Complainant and its website at the registration date of November 1, 2025, such that there is any basis to conclude Respondent registered the Domain Name and sought to register its TRAYDE mark in awareness of or with the intention of passing off as the Complainant. The record does not indicate that Respondent has sought to register any other domain names incorporating the TRAYD mark or engage in any other conduct that suggests the use of the Domain Name is anything other than for a bona fide offering of services. In particular, the Panel does not consider the decision by the Respondent to apply to register TRAYDE as a trademark with the USPTO 32 days after the registration date to be evidence of illegitimate conduct; rather it appears to be standard business conduct of a legitimate business that is seeking to protect its brand that arose independently. Nor does the Respondent's continued use of the Domain Name after the initial rejection of the TRAYDE application by the USPTO result in it lacking rights or legitimate interests; while a registered mark can be the basis on which rights or legitimate interests are found it does not follow that the absence of one, or even the rejection of an application by a national trademark authority means a party lacks rights or legitimate interests in a corresponding Domain Name. Panels have recognized that "[t]he Policy's purpose is to combat abusive domain name registrations and not to provide a prescriptive code for resolving more complex trade mark disputes". Luvilon Industries NV v. Top Serve Tennis Pty Ltd., DAU2005-0004 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2005). See also Courtney Love v. Brooke Barnett, FA 944826 (Forum May 14, 2007) ("the purpose of the Policy is not to resolve disputes between parties who might each have legitimate rights in a domain name. The purpose of the Policy is to protect trademark owners from cybersquatters, that is, from people who abuse the domain name system in a very specific way, which specific way is outlined in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy."). The Panel acknowledges that Respondent's conduct may infringe Complainant's TRAYD mark and the Panel wishes to make it clear that other remedies may be available to the Complainant in a different forum, and that nothing in this decision should be understood as providing a definitive finding on the respective mark rights of the parties, beyond the narrow question determined under this proceeding. However, the question of trademark infringement is beyond the scope of the present proceeding, which is summary in nature. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting, see IAFT International LLC v. MANAGING DIRECTOR / EUTOPIAN HOLDINGS, FA 1577032 (Forum Oct. 9, 2014) ("The objectives of the Policy are limited -- designed to obviate the need for time-consuming and costly litigation in relatively clear cases of cyber-squatting -- and not intended to thwart every sort of questionable business practice imaginable). If the Complainant wishes to bring proceedings against the Respondent for trademark infringement or passing off, such a proceeding is more appropriately brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of rights or legitimate interests, the Panel declines to address the question of registration and use in bad faith. DECISION Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <trayde.ai> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: October 1, 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.