OpenGPU Network: Battle of AI power results in UDRP

Businesses using the power of graphic processing units (GPUs) to leverage AI power are increasingly in the limelight.

A French business, oGPU network, was hit with a UDRP over the domain name OpenGPU.network; the reason: PixelDisplay, Inc. of US claimed rights to the OGPU mark going back to 2021.

Not so fast, said the Forum panelist. The Respondent made legitimate use of the domain for their Cayman Islands based business since 2024 but their business plan took place in prior years and the panelist identified that:

“OpenGPU Network’s decentralized approach has garnered significant interest and trust within the community. Since its launch, the platform’s native token, OGPU, has appreciated in value, driven by increasing adoption and demand. The OGPU token’s market cap hit $19 million as of July 2024, reflecting the growing belief in the system.”

Final decision: Deny the transfer of the domain OpenGPU.network to the Complainant.

PixelDisplay, Inc. v. oGPU network

Claim Number: FA2412002131085

PARTIES

Complainant is PixelDisplay, Inc. (“Complainant”), of Austin, Texas, USA, represented by Jason C. Palmer of PALMER LAW, PLC, Tennessee, USA. Respondent is oGPU network (“Respondent”) of Roubaix, France, represented by Jeremiah Chew of Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP, Singapore.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is opengpu.network, registered with Squarespace Domains 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

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 24, 2024. Forum received payment on December 24, 2024.

On December 26, 2024, Squarespace Domains Llc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the opengpu.network domain name is registered with Squarespace Domains Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Squarespace Domains Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Squarespace Domains 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 December 30, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 21, 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@opengpu.network. Also on December 30, 2024, 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.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 20, 2025.

On January 20, 2025, pursuant to the Parties’ requests 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, PixelDisplay, Inc., is a leading-edge technology company founded in October 2015 that is revolutionizing intelligence at the visual edge, including the development of the OpenGPU technology. Complainant provides goods, services, and intellectual property licenses associated with this technology under the name OPENGPU (the “Mark”). Complainant was using the Mark publicly from at least February 6, 2021, and in international commercial from at least June 21, 2021.

Complainant owns a United States federal trademark registration and a United States federal trademark application for the OPENGPU Mark, as well as several domain names featuring or associated with the Mark, including OpenGPU.net.

Respondent’s opengpu.network domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the Mark. Respondent has no rights in and is not commonly known by the Mark. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent whatsoever, and therefore no relationship that would justify Respondent’s use of the Mark in the domain name. Respondent registered the opengpu.network domain name only three months after Complainant received its registration for the Mark. This indicates that issuance of the Registration confirmed Respondent’s belief in the Mark’s value, prompting Respondent to appropriate a domain name containing the Mark.

Respondent registered and began using the domain name without Complainant’s approval. A review of the USPTO trademark database shows that no other entity has ever sought protection of OPENGPU in connection with any goods or services. Complainant already owned the OpenGPU.net domain name when Respondent registered and began using the opengpu.network domain name. Thus, the uniqueness of the Mark and Respondent’s actions in registering the domain name shortly after Complainant sought registration with the USPTO show that Respondent’s actions were not coincidental. Instead, Respondent acted with full knowledge of Complainant’s technology associated with the Mark and the Mark’s value. Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

First, Respondent’s name is not “OpenGPU Network”. Respondent’s name is “oGPU Network.” If Respondent intended to use a domain name legitimately, and one that corresponds to its actual name, it could have done so. Respondent chose opengpu.network not because it describes Respondent’s name, but because it contains the Mark, which is much more valuable.

Second, Respondent knew or must have known about Complainant’s ownership of OpenGPU.net when it registered and began using the domain name. Complainant has owned OpenGPU.net since 2021, shortly after it began using the Mark. Respondent did not register the domain name until 2024. Respondent presumably would have sought registration of OpenGPU.net if it were available, but it was not. Respondent knew OpenGPU.net was not available and sought registration of the next best thing: opengpu.network. In the course of this process, though, Respondent learned and knew about Complainant and its rights in the Mark. Given the dissimilarity between Respondent’s name and the domain name, Respondent sought to exploit the Mark’s value for Respondent’s own gain and to siphon value from Complainant. Given the long list of domain names Complainant owns associated with the Mark, Respondent scoured the Internet for domain names containing the Mark to acquire what was left. It would have been virtually impossible for Respondent to find and acquire the domain name while remaining ignorant of Complainant and its rights in the Mark.

Third, the uniqueness of the Mark bolsters the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the domain name with actual or constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the Mark. No other entity has ever sought USPTO registration of OPENGPU, and Complainant is unaware of any active foreign trademark applications, except for its own, for the Mark. The Mark is unique, making it even less probable that Registrant registered and began using the domain name innocently or coincidentally.

Fourth, Respondent has no connection with Complainant’s OPENGPU technology. Complainant’s OPENGPU technology includes a versatile combination of hardware and software technologies that enhances artificial intelligence and compute processing performance. Respondent’s website suggests that Respondent does the same. Respondent’s website represents that one can “monetize their idle GPU resources by joining our decentralized computing network.” Respondent further represents that one can “Harness the Potential of Decentralized GPU Computing with OpenGPU Network”, that “OpenGPU Network is created for supporting developers and businesses to create modern AI and blockchain solutions”, and that the OpenGPU Network platform can “offer a processing capacity of more than 5000 operations per second rapidly and efficiently.”

Respondent’s representations suggest that users can monetize Complainant’s OPENGPU technology or similar technology for profit. However, Respondent does not offer the OPENGPU technology. Instead, Respondent offers a medium for users to make users’ own technology available for use. Respondent is capitalizing on the Mark’s value by representing a connection with Complainant and a way to make use of Complainant’s technology. Respondent has no connection with Complainant or its OPENGPU technology, but Respondent’s representations suggest otherwise. This is opportunistic bad faith in satisfaction of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Respondent’s actions in promoting OPENGPU technology also create a likelihood of confusion as to affiliation with Complainant, which also constitutes evidence of bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

Respondent does not admit that Complainant has rights in the OPENGPU mark and Complainant is put to strict proof thereof. Respondent admits that the domain name opengpu.network contains the words “OpenGPU”, in which Complainant claims to have rights. However, even if Complainant has rights in the OPENGPU mark (which is not admitted), Respondent’s position is that Respondent also has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the OPENGPU mark, and the domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith.

Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in respect of the opengpu.network domain name.

Respondent has used “OpenGPU” and “OpenGPU Network” as its brand names and as terms to describe its business model – a global network powered by individual GPU owners who connect their machines to provide computing power – in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services since April 2024. This took place well in advance of the Respondent receiving the notice regarding this dispute on 30 December 2024. Respondent laid the groundwork for its OpenGPU Network from 2017 to 2023, with the public launch of the OpenGPU Network occurring in 2024.

Essentially, the OpenGPU Network aims to provide an open, decentralized, and trustless platform/network that enables global access to GPU resources. It operates on a blockchain based, permissionless and trustless model with a low barrier to entry for all peers. The network supports an ecosystem where GPU resources can be optimally used by individuals, small enterprises, and large organizations without relying on centralized intermediaries. The OpenGPU Network uses its own proprietary token, the oGPU token, to incentivize participation and support network growth. The oGPU token serves as the primary currency for all transactions within the network.

Respondent’s business comprises three associated entities, namely, OpenGPU Foundation, registered in the Cayman Islands on 25 October 2024, OpenGPU Limited, registered in the British Virgin Islands on 19 November 2024, and NETBC LABS registered in Singapore on 16 July 2024. NETBC LABS (www.netbclabs.com) is a software development company that provides services to Respondent. In accordance with the formal service agreement established between OpenGPU Foundation and NETBC LABS, one of the services provided relates to maintaining the website to which the opengpu.network domain name resolves (“the Website”). Copies of the incorporation documents of these three associated entities as well as the service agreement between OpenGPU Foundation and NETBC LABS are attached hereto as Annex 2. Accordingly, Respondent is formed by three genuine entities that provide a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The opengpu.network domain name is the only domain name registered by Respondent.

Respondent has dedicated significant resources to the development of the Website since registering the opengpu.network domain name in April 2024, utilizing it as an official platform to promote its business. The Website is regularly updated and maintained by NETBC LABS. It contains a comprehensive amount of information which shows that Respondent operates a legitimate business. For example, there is a dedicated section that features the OpenGPU Academy, an educational platform that offers essential documentation and introductory training materials about the OpenGPU Network. This academy aims to provide comprehensive resources for developers, tech enthusiasts, educators and students. Other key promotional materials published on the Website include Respondent’s litepaper (dated August 2024), whitepaper and pitch deck. Respondent has actively advertised and continues to advertise the Website through various channels, including designating the Website as its official website on several social media platforms such as LinkedIn, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). The YouTube and X accounts were established in May 2024 and March 2024 respectively.

Further, Respondent has been using email addresses associated with the opengpu.network domain name to contact and communicate with third parties and their users. Most of these email addresses are listed on the Website for the users’ information. One example of use is that Respondent received notification of this Complaint via the email addresses postmaster@OpenGPU.network and info@opengpu.network.

Based on the above evidence, Respondent denies Complainant’s allegation that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, it is clear that Respondent has been using the domain name only in association with the Website, for the purpose of promoting and advertising its own business.

Secondly, Respondent is commonly known by the opengpu.network domain name. Respondent is commonly referred to as and associated with the terms “OpenGPU” and/or “OpenGPU Network. A search on Google for the terms “OpenGPU” and “opengpu.network” displays websites referring to or associated with Respondent on the first page of the search results, none of which relate to Complainant. It is evident that Respondent is widely recognized by the domain name and there exists a significant and inseparable association between Respondent and the opengpu.network domain name.

Further, Respondent has been using “OpenGPU” or “OpenGPU Network” as the account name for all its social media accounts, which have a considerable number of subscribers and followers, which clearly show that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Respondent’s OpenGPU Network business has also garnered favourable reviews in the media, reflecting its goodwill in the industry. For example, OpenGPU Network was featured in an article by Cointelegraph, a media company that focuses on the crypto industry, on 3 August 2024. The article reported that:

“OpenGPU Network’s decentralized approach has garnered significant interest and trust within the community. Since its launch, the platform’s native token, OGPU, has appreciated in value, driven by increasing adoption and demand. The OGPU token’s market cap hit $19 million as of July 2024, reflecting the growing belief in the system.”

Thirdly, Respondent has a clear domain name-related track record. The opengpu.network domain name is the only domain name registered by Respondent. Further, Respondent has not been a party to any other proceeding under the Policy in respect to any domain name. The evidence presented by Complainant does not point towards cybersquatting in this case.

Fourthly, pursuant to section 2.14.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, where the meaning of the TLD appears to corroborate a respondent’s bona fide use or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name (e.g., the respondent has a legitimately obtained and used trademark covering goods or services connected to the meaning of the relevant TLD), the selection of the TLD may support respondent rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. This is precisely the case here. Respondent is using “OpenGPU Network” as the term to describe its business model. Respondent has consistently used this term on the Website and across all its promotional materials. In fact, Respondent selected “.network” as the TLD of the domain name because the word “network” is strongly associated with its business. This supports a finding that Respondent has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.

Respondent did not register or use the domain name in bad faith.

Firstly, the opengpu.network domain name was not registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. The domain name is a valuable and important asset belonging to Respondent. It is the only domain name owned by Respondent and Respondent has invested substantial resources to develop and maintain the Website, which is designated as the official website of Respondent’s business on all its social media accounts, some of which have gained a significant following. The domain name is therefore integral to Respondent’s business, as there is significant reputation and goodwill associated with the domain name.

The fact that the Website serves as the official platform for Respondent’s business indicates that it could not have been registered by Respondent for any purpose other than to represent its own business. It is abundantly clear that Respondent did not register the domain name to prevent Complainant from reflecting the Mark in a corresponding domain name. Complainant has also failed to show that Respondent has engaged in such conduct previously.

Complainant and Respondent are not competitors and the domain name was not registered by Respondent primarily to disrupt Complainant’s business. Complainant and Respondent operate in two separate and distinct industries. Complainant’s business focuses on developing technologies related to display screens. This is apparent from the factual background stated in the Complaint and by the fact that the goods and services covered in Complainant’s purported trade mark applications focus on display screens and related technologies. In contrast, Respondent’s business focuses on decentralized computing which is completely different from Complainant’s business. Given the differences in the parties’ businesses, the parties’ target customers and trade channels are very different. On this basis, Respondent cannot have registered the domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business, nor can Respondent have intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s Website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s Website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s Website or location.

Respondent denies Complainant’s allegation that Respondent’s name is not “OpenGPU Network” but “oGPU Network”. Respondent submits that all three terms “OpenGPU”, “OpenGPU Network” and “oGPU” are used by Respondent to describe its business. “OpenGPU” has always been Respondent’s brand name, and Respondent is using “OpenGPU Network” as the term to describe its business model. As for “oGPU”, it is the ticker (i.e. the symbol or abbreviation) for Respondent’s token which serves as the primary currency for all transactions within Respondent’s OpenGPU Network. There is nothing unusual or illegitimate about using a ticker as a short form to describe a cryptocurrency or token – for instance, Bitcoin is abbreviated as BTC and Ethereum is abbreviated as ETH.

To provide examples of Respondent’s use of these three terms, “OpenGPU” is displayed at the top left-hand corner of the Website as Respondent’s brand name and trade mark. In the Respondent’s litepaper, white paper and pitch deck, “OpenGPU Network” is used as a term to describe its business model and “oGPU” is used to refer to the tokens. “OpenGPU” and “OpenGPU Network” are also used as the name of Respondent’s social media accounts. Third parties have also been using “OpenGPU”, “OpenGPU Network” and “oGPU” to refer to Respondent’s business. For example, security focused ranking platforms for blockchain projects (e.g., CertiK Skynet), cryptocurrency trading platforms (e.g., Gate.io) and crypto assets price-tracking website (e.g., CoinMarketCap) all use “OpenGPU” and “OpenGPU Network” to refer to Respondent’s name/business and “oGPU” to refer to Respondent’s token. Similarly, content creators clearly refer to “OpenGPU”, “OpenGPU Network” and “oGPU” in their YouTube videos and articles related to Respondent.

Respondent denies Complainant’s allegation that Respondent knew or must have known about Complainant’s ownership of OpenGPU.net when it registered and began using the domain name. Respondent was unaware of Complainant’s existence until it received the dispute notice on 30 December 2024. The mere fact that Complainant has registered other domain names containing “OpenGPU”, or that Complainant has purportedly registered / applied to register trademarks in the United States, does not prove that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s alleged rights in the mark OPENGPU. As acknowledged by Complainant itself, the parties have no prior relationship whatsoever. It is absurd and completely speculative for Complainant to allege that Respondent has actual or constructive notice of Complainant’s alleged rights in its trademarks.

Moreover, pursuant to section 3.2.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the complainant’s mark is not inherently distinctive and it also corresponds to a dictionary term or is otherwise inherently attractive as a domain name, if a respondent can credibly show that the complainant’s mark has a limited reputation and is not known or accessible in the respondent’s location, panels may be reluctant to infer that a respondent knew or should have known that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. In this case, Complainant’s trademark consists of the English word/terms “Open” and “GPU” (short form for “graphics processing unit”) which are descriptive and/or have a low degree of distinctiveness. Further, searches on Google for the terms “OpenGPU” or “opengpu.network” display results relating to Respondent instead of the Complainant on the first page of the search results, which demonstrate that Complainant’s Mark has a very limited reputation. In view of the above, it is completely baseless for Complainant to draw a presumption that Respondent had knowledge about the domain name [scil the Mark] when it registered and began using the domain name.

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to establish all the elements entitling it 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 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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the OPENGPU mark through registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 7,279,778 registered on January 16, 2024, upon application filed on March 2, 2021, in International Class 9 for “Flat panel display screens; Graphics accelerators; Graphics cards; Graphics processor units (GPUs); OLED (Organic light emitting diode) display panels; Central processing units (CPU); Computer graphic cards; Computer graphics boards; Computer hardware for high-speed processing and storage of data using multiple CPU’s; Digital signal processors; Downloadable computer graphics software; Flexible flat panel displays for computers; High definition graphic chipsets; Light emitting diode (LED) displays; Micro processors; Micro-processors; Raster image processors; Thin Film Transistor-Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) panels; Video graphics accelerator; Video graphics controller; Video processors; Viewing devices, namely, digital photograph viewers, 3D digital photograph viewers, underwater digital photograph viewers, underwater 3D digital photographs viewers, underwater LCD displays, underwater enclosures for LCD displays and underwater enclosures for video players”).

The Panel finds Respondent’s opengpu.network domain name to be identical to Complainant’s OPENGPU mark, since the “.network” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), although relevant to the second and third elements, may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

Complainant has established this element.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

(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 opengpu.network domain name was registered on April 5, 2024, almost three months after the registration of Complainant’s OPENGPU mark. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant’s OPENGPU mark on the first page.

These circumstances, together with Complainant’s 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 opengpu.network domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).

Respondent has shown that the names “OpenGPU”, “OpenGPU Network” and “oGPU” are all used on its Website and are also used by others to refer to Respondent and the business it has been operating. Accordingly, the Panel finds that, before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent has used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, that Respondent has been commonly known by the opengpu.network domain name.

Complainant has failed to establish this element.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the Panel’s above, it is unnecessary to consider this element. Any allegations of trademark infringement are more appropriately resolved in a court proceeding.

DECISION

Complainant having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the opengpu.network domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: January 21, 2025

Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available