It’s a UDRP double-tap this week, as attorney John Berryhill followed up his Rams.com UDRP victory with another one.
Tarot Tap, Inc., a US company behind the AI-powered tarot app and site at tarot-tap.com, invoked its 2023 US trademark TAROT TAP to attack Tarotap.com as a near-typo twin used for similar online tarot services, claiming copied look-and-feel, no authorization, and deliberate targeting of its supposed reputation.
Respondent Zaichen Huang, represented by attorney John Berryhill, showed he is the officer of Tarotap Ltd, a UK company formed in December 2023, and that “Tarotap” (tarot + tap) was independently coined and used since early 2024 for AI tarot services primarily aimed at Chinese speakers.
The Panel found the domain confusingly similar but accepted Tarotap Ltd’s company name and sustained commercial use as rights and legitimate interests, and found Huang’s denial of prior knowledge of Tarot Tap credible given the complainant’s limited footprint and generic tarot content. With no evidence of targeting, bad faith was not proven.
Final decision: Complaint denied; tarotap.com remains with the Respondent.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.DECISION
Tarot Tap, Inc. v. Zaichen Huang
Claim Number: FA2510002186386
PARTIES
Complainant is Tarot Tap, Inc. (“Complainant”), United States, represented by Thomas Touchie of Studio Legal LLP, United States. Respondent is Zaichen Huang (“Respondent”), China, represented by John Berryhill, United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is tarotap.com, registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
Paul M. DeCicco and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and David E. Sorkin as Chair.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 31, 2025; Forum received payment on October 31, 2025.
On November 3, 2025, Amazon Registrar, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the tarotap.com domain name is registered with Amazon Registrar, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Amazon Registrar, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Amazon Registrar, Inc. 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 November 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 28, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@tarotap.com. Also on November 3, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on November 28, 2025.
On December 8, 2025, pursuant to Respondent’s request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco and Steven M. Levy as Panelists and David E. Sorkin as Chair.
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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant and a predecessor in interest have used TAROT TAP since 2022 in connection with a mobile app and website (at tarot-tap.com) that provide AI-powered tarot card experiences. Complainant states that its service currently maintains approximately 400 to 450 monthly active users and that it recorded more than 10,000 site sessions during the second half of 2024. Complainant states that it is preparing a comprehensive relaunch of the TAROT TAP mobile app in 2026, expanding the platform’s capabilities, and has made substantial investments in developing and marketing this relaunch. Complainant owns a United States trademark registration for TAROT TAP in standard character form, issued in January 2023 and reflecting a first use in commerce date of November 2021.
The disputed domain name tarotap.com was registered in December 2023. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website that offers tarot card-related services similar to those offered by Complainant. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s website “reproduces key visual and functional elements associated with Complainant’s brand — such as digital tarot card interfaces and descriptive language emphasizing interactive, online readings — creating a false impression of affiliation or shared origin likely to confuse users.” Complainant alleges further that its app had “achieved substantial recognition in the online tarot space” by December 2023, when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and that it is implausible that Respondent would have been unaware of Complainant’s mark at that time. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name tarotap.com is confusingly similar to its TAROT TAP mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent is the sole officer of Tarotap Ltd., a company based in China and chartered under that name in the United Kingdom in December 2023, shortly before Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name tarotap.com. Respondent claims that he “independently conceived of the two word combination of ‘tarot’ and ‘tap,'” adopting the name for a website on which “visitors could ‘tap’ to buy tarot merchandise,” and that he registered the disputed domain name tarotap.com upon finding that it was available. He states that he did not look for United States trademark registrations containing similar words at the time, and that he would not have thought to do so. He states further that his company has been using the tarotap.com domain name to offer AI-powered tarot card readings since early 2024, and that these services are “primarily directed to Chinese language speakers by default.” He states that his partner has developed a substantial following on social media in connection with tarot readings since 2023, including a vlogging presence with hundreds of thousands of viewers.
Respondent notes that Complainant was formed in September 2024. Respondent alleges that the United States trademark registration for TAROT TAP had effectively been abandoned when it was acquired by Complainant in March 2025, and that the registration was for downloadable tarot software, not online AI-powered tarot card readings. Respondent alleges further that Complainant “is attempting something of a card trick to ‘backdate’ its more recent online AI chat service by conflating it with downloadable software for which the US trademark registration was obtained.”
Respondent acknowledges the similarity between the disputed domain name tarotap.com and Complainant’s TAROT TAP mark. However, Respondent asserts rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name and denies that it was registered or is being used in bad faith, arguing that his company Tarotap Ltd. is commonly known by the domain name and that it has been using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services since prior to any notice of the current dispute.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name tarotap.com incorporates Complainant’s registered TAROT TAP trademark, with the space and a letter “T” omitted, and the “.com” top-level domain appended thereto. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., Coachella Music Festival, LLC & Future Festivals, LLC v. Mary Jane Leonhardi, FA 1685020 (Forum Sept. 14, 2016) (finding desertripconcert.com confusingly similar to DESERT TRIP). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that rights or legitimate interests may be demonstrated by evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, or by the Respondent’s use of or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to any notice of the dispute. The Panel finds these circumstances to be present here, based upon Respondent’s 2023 UK company registration and other evidence, and therefore finds that Complainant has failed to demonstrate the requisite lack of rights and legitimate interests.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name “primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.” Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that “by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent’s] 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 [Respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent’s] web site or location.”
To have registered a domain name in bad faith, Respondent must have been aware of Complainant or its mark when registering the domain name, and the registration must in some way have been targeted at Complainant or its mark. See Vanity Shop of Grand Forks, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Vertical Axis Inc., FA 1595932 (Forum Jan. 20, 2015); Kanal, Inc. v. Domain Admin, FA 1478238 (Forum Feb. 12, 2013); UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.3 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/ (“a Respondent must have targeted Complainant or its trade mark, or at least had Complainant in mind, when it registered the disputed domain name” (emphasis omitted)).
Respondent owns a company with a name that corresponds to the disputed domain name. Respondent has been using the domain name in connection with what appears to be a bona fide offering of goods or services for nearly two years, primarily or entirely in jurisdictions other than the United States, where Complainant’s mark is registered. Respondent denies having knowledge of Complainant or its mark at the time the domain name was registered, and the Panel finds Respondent’s declaration to be credible. Complainant’s mark does not appear to be particularly well known, based on the limited evidence submitted, and the generic tarot card images and other aspects of Respondent’s website do not suggest any connection to or familiarity with Complainant or its website. See, e.g., Sinclair Finance Co. v. Nathaniel Young / SumValley, FA 1835985 (Forum May 3, 2019) (declining to find bad faith where domain name was related to bona fide adoption and use of corresponding business name, and respondent’s denial of knowledge of complainant was credible).
The Panel finds insufficient evidence to support a finding of bad faith registration and use.
DECISION
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the tarotap.com domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
David E. Sorkin, Chair
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Steven M. Levy, Panelist
Dated: December 12, 2025
