Cannes.ai taken from German registrant after city files UDRP

The domain Cannes.ai, registered in June 2023 by German AI enthusiast Ignace Ayosso, was challenged by the City of Cannes, France via the UDRP process. The city owns both French and EU trademarks for CANNES, dating back to 2005 and 2006.

The Respondent claimed he planned a civic-minded AI platform and had reached out to the city about a potential partnership. In support, he provided a February 2025 letter and a brief PowerPoint, asserting public benefit and no intent to profit off the city’s name.

The panel, however, found no credible evidence of a real project. The letter referenced letting “another actor” exploit the domain if the city didn’t respond, which was interpreted as an implied threat. Combined with lack of active use, the WIPO panel viewed this as registration in bad faith with intent to sell.

Final decision: Grant the transfer of the domain Cannes.ai to the Complainant. Not all geo-domains are risk-free!

DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL – City of Cannes v. Ignace Ayosso
Case No. DAI2025‑0012

1. The Parties
The Complainant is the City of Cannes, France, represented by Taylor Wessing LLP, France.
The Respondent is Ignace Ayosso, Germany.

2. Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name cannes.ai is registered with united‑domains AG (hereinafter “the Registrar”).

3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in French with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 25, 2025. On March 26, 2025, the Center sent a verification request to the Registrar. On April 4, 2025, the Registrar confirmed the registration details.

On April 8, 2025, the Center informed both parties—in German and French—that the domain registration agreement was in German. On April 9, 2025, the Complainant requested that French be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent agreed and filed his Response in French on April 15, 2025.

The Center found the Complaint and the amended Complaint to comply with the UDRP’s Rules, the Rules of Procedure, and the WIPO Supplemental Rules. Pursuant to Rules of Procedure, paragraphs 2 and 4, on April 10, 2025, the Center notified the Respondent of the proceeding in both German and French; the deadline for filing a Response was April 30, 2025, but the Respondent filed on April 15.

On May 19, 2025, the Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist. All procedural requirements for formation of the administrative panel were met.

On June 10, 2025, under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules of Procedure, the Panel issued an administrative order inviting the Respondent, by June 15, 2025, to produce the communication he claimed to have sent “months ago” to the Cannes City Hall and to submit concrete evidence (e.g., a business plan) of his intended use of the disputed domain; the Complainant was invited to comment by June 20, 2025.

The Respondent filed his submission on June 10; the Complainant filed its observations on June 20. On June 22 and July 5, the Respondent submitted additional out‑of‑time comments, but they added nothing new. On July 10 he filed a further document, also late.

4. Factual Background
The Complainant, a French territorial authority, owns the following CANNES trademarks:

French trademark No. 3372704, registered July 27, 2005;
EU trademark No. 004658639, registered October 6, 2006.

The Respondent, a German citizen active in artificial intelligence, registered the domain on June 20, 2023. It does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts each UDRP element is met:

1. The domain is identical to its CANNES marks.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the name—no authorization, no bona fide use, is not known by the domain, and made no preparations beyond registration.
3. The domain was registered and is used in bad faith to sell or transfer it—his February 13, 2025 letter threatens to let “another party” exploit it if the Complainant does not buy it, implying a threat and a demand for payment. Lack of active use supports bad faith since he never intended genuine operation but only transfer.

In reply to the Panel’s order, the Complainant contends the Respondent’s alleged outreach to the City Hall is a vague marketing‑style AI‑generated text with no serious project details.

B. Respondent
The Respondent argues the Complainant fails the UDRP criteria. He says “Cannes” is a well‑known geographic name used generically, and the domain was intended for a public‑spirited AI innovation platform serving citizens, tourists, and partners, not to confuse or copy the City or the Festival. He claims he contacted City Hall months ago seeking a long‑term partnership but received no reply.

In response to the Panel’s order, he submitted the February 13 letter (Annex 4) and an 8‑slide PowerPoint as proof of his planned project. On July 10, he filed a late document attesting he manually lodged the CANNES.AI project with City Hall.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under UDRP Paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove:
(i) the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark on which it holds rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests; and
(iii) it was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Language of the Proceedings
Although the registration agreement is in German, in its discretion the Panel has chosen French as the language of the proceeding, given the Complainant’s domicile in France, the Respondent’s French‑language communications, and considerations of fairness under Rule 11(a).

A. Identity or Confusing Similarity
The domain fully reproduces the CANNES mark. The “.ai” gTLD does not confer distinctiveness in this comparison. The first element is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once the Complainant makes a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to the Respondent. His bare assertions of an AI platform and his vague PowerPoint fail to provide credible, specific evidence of good‑faith preparations. His late‑filed document adds nothing concrete. The second element is satisfied.

C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Under Paragraph 4(b), factors demonstrating bad faith include registration primarily to sell or transfer the domain to the trademark owner for profit. The February 13 letter shows the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s mark and intended to profit from its reputation, threatening that “another actor” could exploit it. This confirms registration and use in bad faith. Past UDRP decisions (Hermès International v. MMGA Domains, D2014‑1760; Leicht Kuchen AG v. Twisted Logic, D2009‑1332) support that such conduct is bad faith. The third element is satisfied.

7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to UDRP Paragraph 4(i) and Rule 15, the Panel orders that the domain cannes.ai be transferred to the Complainant.

/ Edoardo Fano /
Sole Panelist
Date: July 11, 2025

Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.