Dispute Ruling Transfers “Corning.ai” Domain Name to Corning Incorporated

In a recent UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) decision, a dispute between Corning Incorporated and domain name registrant Lee Corning has generated a great deal of attention. The case highlights the importance of the defendant's involvement and the complex relationship between domain name registrations and trademark interests.

Background

Corning Incorporated is a 170-year-old materials science innovator whose trademark “CORNING” is registered in several countries around the world. Lee Corning, the registrant of the disputed domain name “corning.ai”, registered a related domain name “leecorning.com” in June 2024. Based on the record, the disputed domain name may have been registered in 2024 because its previous registrant failed to renew it in 2023.Lee Corning did not respond to the UDRP, and this absence may have had a significant impact on the outcome of the case.

Key Issues

1. similarity between the trademark and the domain name: the disputed domain name is identical to Corning's trademark and is likely to cause confusion. This element is easily satisfied under WIPO.

2. Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interests: Corning submitted evidence that Lee Corning does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has failed to refute the Complaint or provide evidence of its legitimate interests.

3. Registration and Use in Bad Faith: The Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally registered a domain name similar to the Complainant's trademark in order to attract traffic and to obtain commercial advantage. The Disputed Domain Name was used to display PPC advertisements related to the Complainant's products, further confirming the existence of bad faith use.

Decision Result

In the end, the Panel decided to transfer the disputed domain name “corning.ai” to the Complainant, Corning Incorporated. This decision emphasizes the importance of the Respondent's participation in the UDRP process. If the Respondent is able to reasonably participate and provide evidence, it may influence the outcome of the final decision. Absence not only deprives the defendant of the opportunity to defend itself, but also exposes it to a greater risk of damages.

Conclusion

This case provides important insights for businesses in the areas of domain name management and trademark protection. Enterprises should actively monitor their trademark-related domain name registrations and participate in relevant procedures in a timely manner when encountering disputes in order to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. At the same time, domain name registrants need to choose the registered domain names carefully to avoid potential legal risks.