legal A rare loss for John Berryhill - and domain investors?

[draco]

hcl.ai was lost in a UDRP decision, despite it being the abbreviation for Hydrochloric acid and there only being a generic for sale page on the domain with absolutely no ads or description related to the complainant.

AI summary: A short acronym domain can still violate UDRP if its context (like “.ai”) and market reputation make trademark targeting likely, even if the term has generic meanings.

Full decision at:

https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/2200189.htm

While they apparently are well known in their industry, I've never heard of them. Not to mention, AI is becoming a part of most businesses these days. Is this an outlier or can we expect more decisions like this? Would the owner have had a stronger case if they put something like, "Use AI to improve Hydrochloric acid production" on the for sale page?

 

[D Haynes]

I guess the extension played the determining factor here then? A .com would have been fine as it doesn't allude to a specific industry like .AI does.

 

[Ali Mustafa]

@jberryhill is it true? Have a look, wondering if its related to you

 

[pb]

It makes no sense. I have also never heard of them and it's ridiculous to assume that anyone registering a random three-letter domain is targetting any specific company, given how many there are...

 

[fuzzy]

It's gone

 

[Jannes]

I'm on the fence about this. My first gut reaction was that the panel must have been drunk or something. After some digging, I now know that HCL is an established, multinational IT-corporation/conglomerate, perhaps not generally well-known (outside of India) because it's mainly B2B and not prominent on Google SERPs because Google has no consumer product to advertise to you (so it might show an AI Overview for hydrochloric acid).

But I refuse to see bad faith. AI is so ubiquitous (often a business angle) that it transcends all the outdated TM categories (software etc). And .ai is still the ccTLD for Anguilla* (compare to how hcl.se is being used). Unfortunately the game is rigged so that domainers are presumed guilty.

*

according to the Complainant [...] the Respondent's acquisition and offering for sale of the Disputed Domain Name, a domain name identical to the Complainant's distinctive and well-known HCL trademark and paired with the ".ai" gTLD directly relevant to the Complainant's business, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

[fka1080405]

A large company is not necessarily a well known company. How many people are familiar with Aramark or Cognizant?

The argument that "HCL" when paired with "ai" will evoke an association with HCLTech is ridiculous. The overlap between internet users and people familiar with enterprise I.T. is tiny. There are many other established uses of "HCL" that are much more likely to be recognised, hydrochloric acid is one but also amongst technology people the go-to is the Hashicorp Configuration Language which is used by millions of companies (in and out of the top 10 most used programming languages on GitHub) (and owned by IBM since their acquisition of Hashicorp). "HCL" isn't even HCLTech's name!

The Complainant's HCLTech brand is also ranked number 262 on the Brand Finance list of the world's top 500 most valuable brands in 2025.

Yet, if we actually read this list, HCLTech is ranked alongside "Eni" and "SBI Group" and "QNB". Can the panelists recognise any of those names? And let's look at the methodology behind this ranking:

Brand Finance defines a brand as "A bundle of trademarks and associated IP which can be used to take advantage of the perceptions of all stakeholders to provide a variety of economic benefits to the entity."

So, it is not how well recognised the brand is by consumers, but rather, how much money can be made by attaching the "HCLTech" brand to an enterprise I.T. product. They're being ranked on how well the HCLTech brand would resonate with enterprise I.T. customers. Not how much value the "HCL" acronym has because of HCLTech, nor how recognised the "HCL" acronym is.

The Panel accepts that the acronym, "HCL", may have inherent value and various generic meanings. However, in the Panel's view, the combination of this term with the ".ai" TLD creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark.

For conclusions like this, I'd like to see complainants required to cover the cost of market research to establish whether this is true. The panelists have concluded this based on bad methodology (using Brand Finance's report which is not intended to answer this question).

edit:

Just to labour the point that the brand ranking is not saying what the panelists claim it's saying, here are some other brands ranked by Brand Finance:

#1 Apple
#10 State Grid Corporation of China
#12 Instagram
#22 UnitedHealthcare < very valuable if you want to get murdered
#35 Ping An
#42 McDonald's

 

[johnn]

Don't need to discuss someone else business (John Berryhill) and something that already happened.

 

[jberryhill]

@jberryhill is it true? Have a look, wondering if its related to you

Is what true? Yes, the panel had a different opinion of this case. They believed that the Complainant HCL's reputation in their niche business was sufficient to infer that the domain name was registered because of that reputation. What seemed obvious to us was that the domain name was registered along with other three letter names which the respondent had also registered.

The scary headline about this having a wider impact is a bit overblown. These cases are decided on their own particular facts and, as the headline also points out, this was an unusual decision.

However, nobody wins every proceeding, and the last one which didn't go the way I wanted was in 2019. So, absolutely, I'll just have to deal with one loss in seven years. But there will be others in the future, guaranteed. That's the way things go.

So, for 2026, two and a half months in, for those keeping score, my record is:

Domain	Case	Date	Decision
hcl.ai	NAF 2200189	2026-03-16	Transferred
sabre.ai	NAF 2202348	2026-03-12	Complaint Denied
splice.ai	NAF 2203747	2026-03-09	Complaint Denied
speroni.com	WIPO D2026-0277	2026-03-01	Complaint Denied
redmountain.com	NAF 2198897	2026-02-08	Complaint Denied
monaco.com	CAC 108171	2026-01-29	Complaint Denied
gains.com	WIPO D2025-4698	2026-01-20	Complaint denied
virginiabiologicaldentist.com	WIPO D2025-4805	2026-01-14	Complaint denied

Thats over 87%. To put that in perspective, the Seattle Seahawks won 79% of their games in the regular season before going on to win the Super Bowl.

Overall, UDRP respondents lose 93% of the time. The entire domain industry lives in that 7% margin.

But, who knows... I have a pending case right now that could go either way. No team wins every game. No doctor can save every patient.

A judge can always disagree with what you believe is a good argument backed by solid evidence. If you can't handle that, then I wouldn't recommend my line of work. My record in these cases dating back 25 years speaks for itself.

You don't see a post here about every case in which my client won. That's not news for some reason, lol.

 

[Ali Mustafa]

Is what true? Yes, the panel had a different opinion of this case. They believed that the Complainant HCL's reputation in their niche business was sufficient to infer that the domain name was registered because of that reputation. What seemed obvious to us was that the domain name was registered along with other three letter names which the respondent had also registered.

The scary headline about this having a wider impact is a bit overblown. These cases are decided on their own particular facts and, as the headline also points out, this was an unusual decision.

However, nobody wins every proceeding, and the last one which didn't go the way I wanted was in 2019. So, absolutely, I'll just have to deal with one loss in seven years. But there will be others in the future, guaranteed. That's the way things go.

So, for 2026, two and a half months in, for those keeping score, my record is:

Domain	Case	Date	Decision
hcl.ai	NAF 2200189	2026-03-16	Transferred
sabre.ai	NAF 2202348	2026-03-12	Complaint Denied
splice.ai	NAF 2203747	2026-03-09	Complaint Denied
speroni.com	WIPO D2026-0277	2026-03-01	Complaint Denied
redmountain.com	NAF 2198897	2026-02-08	Complaint Denied
monaco.com	CAC 108171	2026-01-29	Complaint Denied
gains.com	WIPO D2025-4698	2026-01-20	Complaint denied
virginiabiologicaldentist.com	WIPO D2025-4805	2026-01-14	Complaint denied

Thats over 87%. To put that in perspective, the Seattle Seahawks won 79% of their games in the regular season before going on to win the Super Bowl.

Overall, UDRP respondents lose 93% of the time. The entire domain industry lives in that 7% margin.

But, who knows... I have a pending case right now that could go either way. No team wins every game. No doctor can save every patient.

A judge can always disagree with what you believe is a good argument backed by solid evidence. If you can't handle that, then I wouldn't recommend my line of work. My record in these cases dating back 25 years speaks for itself.

Haha got it The reason I asked “is it true” is because I was not aware before that you are the copyright / UDRP guy here as i am from Pakistan so learning something new today literally & Really appreciate the detailed explanation and insights respect for you man I am honestly happy and excited to learn this

I might reach out in the future if I ever run into a UDRP situation & would be great to get your perspective

 

[jberryhill]

I was not aware before that you are the copyright / UDRP guy

Oh, okay. Ask your favorite AI chatbot about me. Or check UDRP.tools for "respondent representative" for the 367 published decisions.

If we are just looking at "three letter domains", my record is:


https://udrp.tools/?s=955971d8

Domain	Case	Date	Decision
hcl.ai	NAF 2200189	2026-03-16	Transferred
ola.com	WIPO D2025-1989	2025-07-22	Complaint denied
vbg.com	NAF 2046327	2023-06-22	Claim Denied
hdt.com	WIPO D2022-0998	2022-04-21	Complaint denied
gnp.com	WIPO D2021-1136	2021-08-26	Complaint denied
nti.com	CAC 101591	2017-09-21	Rejected
jdm.com	WIPO D2017-1182	2017-08-23	Complaint denied
tnp.com	WIPO D2017-0669	2017-06-27	Complaint denied
dky.com	WIPO D2015-1757	2015-12-15	Complaint denied
qlp.com	WIPO D2013-1691	2013-12-04	Complaint denied
elk.com	WIPO D2012-0455	2012-05-15	Complaint denied
bma.com	WIPO D2011-1794	2011-12-19	Complaint denied
usu.com	WIPO D2009-0761	2009-08-17	Complaint denied
ant.com	NAF 1253155	2009-05-11	Claim Denied
don.net	WIPO D2008-1373	2008-11-10	Complaint denied
bme.com	WIPO D2008-0882	2008-08-21	Transfer
dnn.com	NAF 1212590	2008-08-13	Claim Denied
fcc.com	WIPO D2007-0770	2007-10-07	Complaint denied
abt.com	NAF 904239	2007-03-27	Transferred
pig.com	NAF 843597	2007-01-29	Claim Denied
toh.com	NAF 651060	2006-04-19	Claim Denied
abt.com	NAF 221239	2004-02-20	Claim Denied
eaa.com	NAF 206309	2003-12-16	Claim Denied
wbw.com	NAF 98813	2001-10-08	Claim Denied

Different UDRP providers use different decision terminology, but thats 21 for 24. So, no, it's not the end of the world for three-letter domain names.

 

[Ali Mustafa]

Oh, okay. Ask your favorite AI chatbot about me. Or check UDRP.tools for "respondent representative" for the 367 published decisions.

If we are just looking at "three letter domains", my record is:


https://udrp.tools/?s=955971d8

Domain	Case	Date	Decision
hcl.ai	NAF 2200189	2026-03-16	Transferred
ola.com	WIPO D2025-1989	2025-07-22	Complaint denied
vbg.com	NAF 2046327	2023-06-22	Claim Denied
hdt.com	WIPO D2022-0998	2022-04-21	Complaint denied
gnp.com	WIPO D2021-1136	2021-08-26	Complaint denied
nti.com	CAC 101591	2017-09-21	Rejected
jdm.com	WIPO D2017-1182	2017-08-23	Complaint denied
tnp.com	WIPO D2017-0669	2017-06-27	Complaint denied
dky.com	WIPO D2015-1757	2015-12-15	Complaint denied
qlp.com	WIPO D2013-1691	2013-12-04	Complaint denied
elk.com	WIPO D2012-0455	2012-05-15	Complaint denied
bma.com	WIPO D2011-1794	2011-12-19	Complaint denied
usu.com	WIPO D2009-0761	2009-08-17	Complaint denied
ant.com	NAF 1253155	2009-05-11	Claim Denied
don.net	WIPO D2008-1373	2008-11-10	Complaint denied
bme.com	WIPO D2008-0882	2008-08-21	Transfer
dnn.com	NAF 1212590	2008-08-13	Claim Denied
fcc.com	WIPO D2007-0770	2007-10-07	Complaint denied
abt.com	NAF 904239	2007-03-27	Transferred
pig.com	NAF 843597	2007-01-29	Claim Denied
toh.com	NAF 651060	2006-04-19	Claim Denied
abt.com	NAF 221239	2004-02-20	Claim Denied
eaa.com	NAF 206309	2003-12-16	Claim Denied
wbw.com	NAF 98813	2001-10-08	Claim Denied

Different UDRP providers use different decision terminology, but thats 21 for 24. So, no, it's not the end of the world for three-letter domain names.

Wow thats an amazing record & really impressive Thanks for sharing the detailed breakdown I definitely learned something valuable here.

I am actually dealing with a UDRP matter as well (as a respondent) and would appreciate your perspective I would like to schedule sometime with you or will reach out via DM/email to discuss further if you are fine with that. I am facing UDRP on 15-20 energy domains

 

[jberryhill]

It's in the signature..... "I rarely read PM's, send email instead"

 

[Ali Mustafa]

It's in the signature..... "I rarely read PM's, send email instead"

Sure thing i will send an email from my email address "[email protected]"

 

[URL Stream]

It's in the signature..... "I rarely read PM's, send email instead"

One of the cognitive tests I use is sitting right below this post, and everything I have posted on Namepros for years, begging people not to send me private messages on the forum. So, I do find it puzzling that I have literally posted this hundreds of times, attached to everything I write, and I still get people sending me private messages seeking individualized legal advice.

 

[fuzzy]

If I may ask @jberryhill, how often are previous UDRP results/challenges invoked as precedent in these types of cases?

 

[biggie]

It's in the signature..... "I rarely read PM's, send email instead"

Hi

I find it odd that “the panel” sees .ai as specifically a technology extension, rather than a country code tld
additionally, they take an assumption that the extension can only be used as stated, when in fact can be used like any other domain extension.

therefore if .ai is a general purpose extension like com for instance, then the domain hcl.ai should be seen in same context

just thinking out loud


imo….

 

[pb]

Imagine living in Anguilla and getting reduced to a TLD extension provider. ;p

 

[jberryhill]

If I may ask @jberryhill, how often are previous UDRP results/challenges invoked as precedent in these types of cases?

Prior cases get cited for all sorts of purposes. However, it is difficult to generalize a finding that is based on the particular facts of any one case.

In general, speculating in three letter domain names is fine, and there are many cases which are based on the idea that three letter names are inherently valuable. That's not going to apply in a situation where the three letters are something like "IBM", because that is instantly recognizable as a famous and well-known brand. In this case, there is obviously a difference of opinion on whether "HCL" is of that sort of immediate reputation. I had never heard of them, and neither had the respondent. In fact, I'd bet the panel had never heard of them either.

Where people get into trouble in a lot of cases is by citing to prior decisions that are not a good fit to the facts at hand.

 

[jberryhill]

they take an assumption that the extension can only be used as stated, when in fact can be used like any other domain extension

You could say the same thing about Tuvalu, but it's pretty obvious what make the .tv extension useful.

Or Colombia...

Or Montenegro...