Legal News

I recently wrote about a concern I have related to AI generated logos used on some domain name for sale landing pages. In short, if the AI created a logo that is similar to a logo being used by an active business, it could put the domain name at risk. A similar risk also exists for AI-generated descriptions and keywords.

A couple of weeks after I published my article, attorney John Berryhill pointed out that a logo generated by AI had been used on a domain name that was subject of a UDRP complaint.

More like D.O.A… pic.twitter.com/s2zhfUnf6R

— John Berryhill (@Berryhillj) June 20, 2025

AI tools can be incredibly useful when marketing domain names, but they also introduce new risks that sellers may not realize. Many of us are now using AI to help sell our domain names. From using AI to generate descriptions and logos on our own and via platforms, it is a helpful set of tools. AI is great, but it can also expose domain names to risks. Attorney John Berryhill has highlighted some of these risks on X, and I think domain investors need to be more aware.

One issue that’s starting to become problematic is the way AI-generated descriptions and logos might unintentionally incorporate signals from existing trademarks, potentially putting your domain listing in jeopardy. AI might associate a descriptive term with a specific industry or business because an existing company has a brand in that industry.

TonyNames shared an image on X that illustrates a fear I have had with respect to AI generated logos for domain names listed for sale:

The Atom logo on this .co domain is on point lol pic.twitter.com/lG2AoaNbQE

— Tony (@TonyNames) June 6, 2025

The DeepSeek logo may be problematic, but it was surprisingly not caught by the domain name seller or platform. My concern is with lesser known brand names.

When I see the term “finsure,” my immediate thought is that it is a portmanteau of the terms finance or financial and insurance or insure. I suspect that is why Finsure.com sold for $9,750 in 2023 via NameJet expiry auction, according to NameBio.

A company called Finsure, which was founded in 2021, uses the Finsure.us Finsure.one domain name for its business (update: this was my error, but it shows there are numerous companies that use Finsure in branding). This company filed a UDRP against the Finsure.com domain name at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). According to DomainLeads, there are 46 “Finsure” TLDs registered and 10 of them are developed. This does not include several hundred other domain names that contain “finsure.” In short, it’s a pretty common compound word and not limited to one single company.

The UDRP decision was published this morning. Not only did the domain registrant prevail in this UDRP, but the three member panel also found it was an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Specifically, the panel found it was a “Plan B” filing whereby a company fails to purchase a domain name and files the UDRP as its “Plan B.”

The ICA hosted a webinar to discuss the Initial Report of the WIPO–ICA UDRP Review Project Team. The joint project between the two organizations aims to explore ways to strengthen the UDRP with incremental improvements.

The primary topics of discussion were related to the following:

• Registrar verification procedures
• Fee payment deadlines
• The potential for an appeals layer
• Challenges of implementing changes like a “loser pays” system

It looks like a UDRP was filed against https://t.co/1tWA9dHQ5m and https://t.co/wlPCjHdTyN at NAF. Both domain names are registered at CSC and owned by IBM. pic.twitter.com/aE6xTXYG2F

— Elliot Silver (@DInvesting) March 4, 2025

A week and a half ago, I noticed a UDRP filing that appeared to be pretty egregious. A company filed a UDRP against ResourceInteractive.com and Resource.com at NAF. I think Resource.com is a 7 figure descriptive one word .com domain name. Both of those domain names have long been owned by IBM, a $225+ billion publicly traded company.

The UDRP decision was published this morning, and in an unsurprising decision, the panelist, Ivett Paulovics, ruled in favor of IBM. In addition, a Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) finding was made. Incidentally, IBM’s counsel did not even request this finding, so it was as clear cut of an RDNH as they come.