International Business Machines IBM Successfully Sues Watson.ai!

International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), the Complainant, has been using the WATSON trademark since 2010, when it introduced a question-and-answer computer system capable of answering questions posed in natural language.

The Respondents claim that they registered Watson.ai in 1997 (or even earlier), but provide no supporting evidence citing such records.

The WHOIS for the domain name shows a registration date of December 16, 2017, with the caveat that the .ai WHOIS system was rebooted at that time, resetting the birthdays of all .ai domains to that date. However, according to the WIPO panel's research, Watson.ai would have been active as early as 2014 or 2015.

According to the UDRP, Defendants also registered numerous other .ai domain names, including free.ai, full.ai, guardian.ai, hard.ai, mac.ai, research.ai, seed.ai, soft.ai, spring.ai, spy.ai, that.ai, this.ai, vote.ai, and war.ai.

The UDRP case was lengthy and, despite its seeming complexity, ultimately failed to find support for the Respondent's claims, leading to the Panel's decision to order the transfer of the domain name Watson.ai to the Complainant.

In that case, the Complainants provided extensive evidence of their WATSON trademark and related technical work. They emphasized the strict protection of the WATSON mark and the rich history of trademark registrations. The Complainants have invested significant resources in maintaining and building their WATSON portfolio, demonstrating their seriousness about their trademarks and their market presence. In addition, Complainant has provided detailed information about its business activities and market share in relation to the WATSON Marks to demonstrate its seriousness and widespread recognition of the brand.

The Respondents, on the other hand, claim to have been working on AI technology since 1989 and have provided some evidence to support their claim of ownership of the Domain Name. However, they did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that they had rights to the domain name long before the Complainant's use and registration.

The entire case involves many legal and procedural issues, including the accuracy of the date of registration of the domain name, the determination and protection of trademark rights, and the credibility of the evidence provided by the parties. The Panel's final decision considered these issues and based its decision on the criteria set forth in the UDRP, transferred the domain name to the Complainant.

In such a complex case, all parties spared no effort in defending their interests, but ultimately the decision was based on the law and the evidence. This case also serves as a reminder that domain name owners and trademark holders must exercise caution to ensure that their rights are adequately protected and to avoid becoming involved in similar disputes.