EventConnect Software LLC and EventConnect Inc. brought a UDRP at Forum against Indian company Coronet Software Private Limited over the domain EventConnect.ai.
The Complainants, represented by Baker & Hostetler LLP, operate under the EVENTCONNECT brand in sports and event management and hold US and Canadian trademark registrations. They argued the Respondent copied their brand and used the disputed domain for a site offering similar event services, creating consumer confusion.
The Respondent did not reply. The Panel found the domain identical to the EVENTCONNECT mark, that the Respondent lacked legitimate interests, and that the site’s imitation of the Complainants’ brand demonstrated bad faith use.
Final decision: The domain EventConnect.ai was ordered transferred to EventConnect Inc.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.DECISION
EventConnect Software, LLC and EventConnect Inc. v. Harpreet Bhatia / Coronet Software Private Limited
Claim Number: FA2508002173973
PARTIES
Complainants are EventConnect Software, LLC and EventConnect Inc. (“Complainants”), represented by Christina J. Moser of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Harpreet Bhatia / Coronet Software Private Limited (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is eventconnect.ai, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainants submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 27, 2025. Forum received payment on August 27, 2025.
On August 28, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the eventconnect.ai domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 August 29, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 18, 2025 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@eventconnect.ai. Also on August 29, 2025, 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 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainants’ request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
Complainants request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant EventConnect, Inc.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
Complainants have shown that they are related companies and they each have registered rights in the EVENTCONNECT trademark. The Panel accepts that this constitutes a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the eventconnect.ai domain name listed in the Complaint.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainants
Complainants, EventConnect Software, LLC and EventConnect Inc., were founded in 2013 to empower youth sports through technology and have pioneered connecting the event registration process with adaptive proprietary technology matched with service and support to advance sports event organizers. Complainants own common law rights and registrations for the EVENTCONNECT mark.
Respondent’s eventconnect.ai domain name is confusingly similar to the EVENTCONNECT mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the eventconnect.ai domain name. There is no evidence of any connection between Respondent’s identity and the domain name. Respondent has no connection to Complainants, who have not authorized, licensed, or endorsed Respondent’s use of the EVENTCONNECT mark in the domain name or the resulting webpage. Complainants are unaware of any legitimate companies in the event industry doing business under any similar name. Respondent attempts to deceive users about the association or affiliation between the domain name and website with Complainants by using Complainants’ famous name at the top of the webpage purportedly in connection with the same services as those offered by Complainants.
The eventconnect.ai domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith. Respondent’s unauthorized use of the EVENTCONNECT mark for a website that purports to provide the same or similar event-related services to those of Complainants is an attempt by Respondent to impersonate Complainants, likely to take Complainants’ customers’ information and money.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainants have established all the elements entitling them to relief.
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 a 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 Complainants’ 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 3.0 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
Complainants have shown that they each have rights in the mark EVENTCONNECT. EventConnect Software, LLC owns USPTO Reg. No. 4,059,386, registered on November 22, 2011 for “providing on-line registration services for conferences and trade shows; on-line appointment scheduling services; on-line general business networking referral services, namely, promoting the goods and services of others by passing business leads and referrals among group members”, in International Class 35. EventConnect Inc. owns Canadian Reg. No. TMA 1317600, registered on May 30, 2025, for inter alia “computer application software for mobile phones, namely, software for automating party and entertainment sporting events management information”, in International Class 9.
The Panel finds Respondent’s eventconnect.ai domain name to be identical to Complainants’ EVENTCONNECT mark, since the inconsequential “.ai” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainants have established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The eventconnect.ai domain name was registered on August 10, 2023, several years after the registration of Complainants’ United States EVENTCONNECT mark. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainants’ EVENTCONNECT mark and offering event management tools described as “An App that turns Organisers into Event Planning Superheros”, and “An All-in-one Event Management & Networking App for In-person Events”.
These circumstances, together with Complainants’ assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the eventconnect.ai domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainants have established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: “the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith” and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants and their EVENTCONNECT mark when Respondent registered the eventconnect.ai domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and of the products or services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainants have established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the eventconnect.ai domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to EventConnect, Inc.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: September 23, 2025
