A UDRP was filed against toptal.ai by Toptal, LLC, the long-established freelance-talent platform operating under its TOPTAL mark since 2010. The Respondent, based in Armenia, registered the domain in 2024 and used it for a site that mimicked Toptal’s branding, copied its service descriptions, displayed “All Rights Reserved Toptal,” and presented itself as offering the same network of vetted developers.
The Panel found the domain identical to the TOPTAL mark and held that the Respondent’s entire use of the site was a calculated act of passing off—a deliberate attempt to confuse visitors, impersonate the Complainant, and attract users seeking Toptal’s legitimate platform. The fake site also solicited sign-ups and email submissions, reinforcing the finding of deceptive commercial intent.
With no Response filed, the Panel accepted the unchallenged evidence showing that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain and had registered and used it in clear bad faith, both by targeting a well-known brand and by using the domain to mislead users for commercial gain.
Final decision: Transfer granted; toptal.ai ordered transferred to the Complainant.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.New UDRP. Note the “passing off” attempt by the Respondent, attempting to confuse visitors.
Toptal, LLC v. Davit Manukyan
Claim Number: FA2510002185326
PARTIES
Complainant is Toptal, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Todd Marabella of Goodwin Procter LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Davit Manukyan (“Respondent”), Armenia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is toptal.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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 27, 2025; Forum received payment on October 27, 2025.
On October 27, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the toptal.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 October 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 19, 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@toptal.ai. Also on October 30, 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 November 20, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of curated networks of top freelance talent in the fields of software engineering, design, finance and other fields and related goods and services and has been so engaged since 2010.
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for TOPTAL.
3. The Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the TOPTAL trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registration number 4944844, registered on April 26, 2016 (“the TOPTAL trademark”).
4. The TOPTAL trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant’s goods and services.
5. As well as its aforesaid trademark, the Complainant registered the toptal.com domain name on July 26, 2010 which it has continually used since then in its business and in particular to provide its goods and services at http://toptal.com.
6. The Respondent registered the toptal.ai disputed domain name on January 26, 2024 (“the disputed domain name”) well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights on April 26, 2016.
7. The disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the TOPTAL trademark, with the addition of the country code top level domain for Anguilla (“.ai”).
8. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TOPTAL trademark.
9. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:
(a) the Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that is calculated to confuse internet users as to whether it is the Complainant’s website, deceive them, lure to that site internet users seeking the Complainant, imitate and impersonate the Complainant and pretend that the services being offered were those of the Complainant;
(b) the aforesaid use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);
(c) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(d) the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant; and
(e) there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
10. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. That is so because:
(a) the TOPTAL trademark is well known as the trademark of the Complainant and the registration and use of a domain name associated with the trademark is accordingly opportunistic bad faith;
(b) the Respondent’s conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit;
(c) the Respondent’s conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to disrupt the Complainant’s business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);
(d) the Respondent at all material times had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, brand and business, and in any event the Respondent could have made a search that would have revealed the Complainant’s interest in the TOPTAL trademark and either did not do so or, if it did make any such search, ignored the result; and
(e) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.
The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of curated networks of top freelance talent in the fields of software engineering, design, finance and other fields and related goods and services and it has been so engaged since 2010.
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for TOPTAL.
3. The Complainant acquired its aforesaid trademark rights by virtue of its registration of the TOPTAL trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) registration number 4944844, registered on April 26, 2016 (“the TOPTAL trademark”).
4. The Respondent registered the toptal.ai disputed domain name on January 26, 2024 (“the disputed domain name”) well after the Complainant had acquired its aforesaid trademark rights on April 26, 2016.
5. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain name to resolve to it website, targeted the Complainant, its potential customers and internet users in general, infringed and tarnished the Complainant’s TOPTAL trademark, impersonated and passed itself off as the Complainant and actively sought to mislead and confuse internet users to believe that the services offered on the Respondent’s website were genuine and official services of the Complainant, which they were not.
6. By reason of the matters aforesaid, and as established by the evidence, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the TOPTAL trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
7. Accordingly, the disputed domain name should be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
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 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 Complainant’s 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 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
The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence has shown that the Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for TOPTAL and that it has done so since 2010. To that end, the Complainant acquired its registered trademark rights in the TOPTAL trademark by virtue of its registration of that trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), registration number 4944844, registered on April 26, 2016 (“the TOPTAL trademark”). The evidence is that the TOPTAL trademark has been used by the Complainant since its registration, has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant’s goods and services.
The Panel has examined the trademark registration and finds that it is registered with respect to the services of various classes of freelance service providers, is current and is registered in the name of the Complainant.
All of the aforesaid facts have been established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order.
The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s TOPTAL trademark. The Panel finds that the toptal.ai disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the TOPTAL trademark. That is so because the disputed domain name embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the TOPTAL trademark, with the addition of the Country Code top level domain for Anguilla (“.ai”).
It is the established practice in this field that extensions such as “.ai”, like the more well-known extensions like “.com”, are disregarded for the purposes of the comparison between a trademark and a domain name, as all domain names require such an extension and its presence does not inform internet users one way or the other whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. There are many prior UDRP decisions to that effect. Accordingly, to interpret the domain name in the present case, the “.ai” is disregarded, with the result that the domain name is identical to the trademark.
The only qualification to that analysis is that it is now sometimes contended that when a domain name is registered in one of the new range of domains and some country codes, the extensions may add to the meaning, as in the present case. Thus, the Panel notes that, in its current list of country codes, and with respect to “.ai”, Wikipedia observes that, as well as signifying Anguilla, “.ai” is “unofficially used by tech companies specializing in AI (Artificial Intelligence).” Applying those considerations can therefore only make the domain name more obviously invoking the Complainant’s TOPTAL trademark and confusingly similar to it, because it indicates the notion of the well-known TOPTAL trademark being used in a “tech” field, which of course is one of the fields in which the Complainant uses the trademark, namely software engineering. Thus, the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and, a fortiori, identical to it.
The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).
The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:
(a) the evidence is that the Respondent caused the disputed domain name to resolve to its website that is before the Panel as Exhibit B; an examination of the website shows that it is calculated to give the impression that it either is the website of the Complainant or is authorized by it; that is so because it has the endorsement “All Rights Reserved Toptal”, which is of course the Complainant’s name and its trademark; the copy of the website on the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org resolves to the word “Toptal” and has as one of its headings in bold print “How Toptal Works”; moreover, the text on the site describes its offerings variously as “a network of vetted, highly skilled developers ready to tackle your business challenges…front-end specialists …our team of developers…(and)flexible engagement models”; thus it is offering under the guise of the Complainant’s trademark the same or similar experts as the Complainant offers and similar to the services with respect to which the trademark is registered, namely “freelance service providers”; thus the website is promoting the subterfuge that it is the Complainant itself and is using the Complainant’s trademark to offer services that compete with the Complainant; the website is also calculated to confuse internet users as to whether it is the Complainant’s website or not, to deceive them, lure internet users seeking the Complainant to the site and it imitates and impersonates the Complainant; there is no way that this brazen copying of the trademark and its services and deception could give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the vey domain name used to carry out this subterfuge;
(b) the aforesaid use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is not a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is nothing legitimate about the use of the domain name on the offending site, it is clearly commercial, being perpetrated for money by one means or another and it is not fair, either to the Complainant or internet users in general;
(c) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the domain name, either commonly or otherwise, and there is no evidence that it is known by any name other than its own, which is Davit Manukyan;
(d) the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in a domain name or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant; this has been established by the evidence and shows that it could not be argued that the domain name was registered or used with anything like the consent of the Complainant; and
(e) the evidence is that there is no other ground on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
The entire use of the domain name consists of copying and deceptive conduct, as the Respondent is using the TOPTAL trademark to impersonate and pass itself off as the Complainant and to use the trademark to offer the same or similar services as the Complainant.
Finally, it is clear from the offerings on the website to “Sign Up For Subscription”, to enter an email address, to “Subscribe” and (on the version on the Wayback Machine) to “Join Us”, that the Respondent is engaging in phishing for personal information. This by itself would negate any possibility that the machinations of the Respondent could give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain name used to carry them out.
The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not advanced any evidence or submissions to show that it could rebut the Complainant’s contentions.
The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly Exhibit B, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on. The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain name and has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain name, incorporating as it does the Complainant’s trademark, for a dishonest and financial objective, as it resolves to a website that copies the substance of Complainant’s legitimate website, uses the TOPTAL trademark to mislead internet users and phishes for personal information, all of which are acts of bad faith. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:
(a) the evidence shows that the TOPTAL trademark is well known as the trademark of the Complainant and the registration and use of a domain name associated with the trademark is accordingly opportunistic bad faith;
(b) as already found by the Panel, the Respondent’s conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit; clearly, the Respondent wanted internet users seeking the Complainant to think that they had or might have reached the website of the Complainant;
(c) the Respondent’s conduct in registering and using the domain name as aforesaid was calculated to disrupt the Complainant’s business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); the interests of the Respondent would be served by siphoning off business away from the Complainant and to the Respondent itself which would inevitably disrupt the business of the Complainant;
(d) the Respondent at all material times had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, brand and business, and in any event the Respondent could have made a search that would have revealed the Complainant’s interest in the TOPTAL trademark and either did not do so or, if it did make any such search, ignored the result; the Respondent had obviously ascertained the experts and professionals the Complainant was working with, so that it could offer the same or similar services as the Complainant; thus it must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant and the services it offered under the trademark; indeed, it could nor have concocted its deceptive scheme had it not had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its trademark and its services; and
(e) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions.
The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain name.
DECISION
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the toptal.ai domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC
Panelist
Dated: November 21, 2025
