Walmart Apollo LLC filed a UDRP against UK-based Sebastian Haigh OAI Ltd over the domain Walmart.ai, relying on its long-standing WALMART, WAL-MART, and WALMART.COM trademarks and massive global retail footprint. The mark was characterized as fanciful and famous, with decades of use and a major online presence at walmart.com.
The domain walmart.ai, registered in December 2017 with Hyper Limited, resolved to a parked page stating “This domain is registered, but may still be available” with a “Get this domain” broker link. Respondent filed no formal Response but emailed that “This case is not disputed,” calling the name part of a portfolio acquired years ago and stating it would be transferred to Walmart.
The Panel found walmart.ai identical to the WALMART mark, disregarding the .ai extension. Walmart made a prima facie showing that the Respondent was not known by “Walmart,” had no authorization, and was only parking the name, so the burden shifted and was not met; no rights or legitimate interests were established.
On bad faith, the Panel held that choosing the invented, famous WALMART name could not be coincidence and that Respondent’s Policy ¶ 2(b) warranty not to infringe third-party rights was breached.
Passive holding combined with a sales-oriented landing page supported Telstra-style bad faith, while reverse WHOIS tying Respondent’s email to a .ai portfolio including other well-known brands (such as autozone.ai and earthsense.ai) reinforced a pattern of predatory registrations.
Final decision: Transfer of walmart.ai to Walmart Apollo, LLC.
Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.DECISION
Walmart Apollo, LLC v. Sebastian Haigh OAI Ltd
Claim Number: FA2510002183941
PARTIES
Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is Sebastian Haigh OAI Ltd (“Respondent”), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is walmart.ai, registered with Hyper Limited.
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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 20, 2025; Forum received payment on October 20, 2025.
On October 29, 2025, Hyper Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the walmart.ai domain name is registered with Hyper Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hyper Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hyper Limited 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@walmart.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 formal 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 James Bridgeman SC 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER
Forum received an email from Respondent on October 28, 2025, stating:
This case is not disputed.
The domain was one of a portfolio acquired some years ago.
We will arrange for it to be transferred to Walmart.
The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. Pursuant to Policy paragraph 2(b), by asking the Registrar to maintain the registration of the disputed domain name Respondent has represented and warranted that to its knowledge, the registration of the disputed domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party.
There is no evidence before the Panel that Respondent has taken any step to arrange for the disputed domain name to be transferred to Complainant; nor has Complainant withdrawn the Complaint.
In these circumstances the Panel is obliged to proceed to determine the Complaint.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the WALMART mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks described below and extensive use of the mark in its international retail business.
Complainant submits that operates one of the largest retail chains globally, with over 10,500 stores and numerous eCommerce websites in 20 countries. Each week, approximately 240 million customers and members visit these stores and websites. Complainant’s fiscal year 2024 revenue exceeded $648.1 billion, and it employs approximately 2.1 million associates worldwide, including 1.6 million in the United States alone. In the United States, consolidated revenue reached $169.6 billion. These figures are supported exhibits annexed to the Complaint.
Complainant adds that it has invested heavily in advertising, with expenditures of $4.4 billion in fiscal 2024, $4.1 billion in 2023, and $3.9 billion in 2022.
Such extensive advertising underscores the fame and recognition of the WALMART trademarks. Complainant owns and operates the domain name walmart.com since at least 1995 and maintains a robust online presence through its website and mobile applications. The Walmart mobile application has been downloaded over 100 million times from the Google Play Store and holds 13.6 million ratings on the Apple App Store, demonstrating extensive consumer engagement. Complainant owns over 80 trademark registrations in the United States, including WALMART, WAL-MART, and design marks, which have been used continuously since 1962.
Firstly, Complainant submits that the disputed domain name walmart.ai is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s WALMART trademark. It incorporates the WALMART mark in its entirety, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension .ai does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Top-level domains are generally disregarded when evaluating confusing similarity. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Igor Gabrielan, FA2072420 (Forum Jan. 8, 2024) (“Under Policy 4(a)(i), adding the ‘.ai’ gTLD to a mark does not differentiate the domain name from the mark it incorporates.”).
Therefore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Secondly, Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, arguing that
· Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
· the WHOIS records for the disputed domain name identify the registrant as Sebastian Haigh, which does not correspond to the disputed domain name;
· Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its WALMART trademarks;
· As shown in a screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page stating: ‘This domain is registered, but may still be available’ along with a ‘Get this domain’ button leading to a domain broker service;
· Respondent’s attempt to profit from the registration of the disputed domain name clearly demonstrates that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name;
· Respondent has not applied for nor registered trademarks or trade names for WALMART, or variations thereof;
· Respondent’s conduct demonstrates an intent to profit from the goodwill associated with Complainant’s mark rather than any legitimate interest;
· Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Complainant thirdly alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing that:-
WALMART is a “fanciful” or “made-up” word, with no meaning other than to identify Complainant as the exclusive source of certain products and services. So, it is highly unlikely that Respondent independently composed this wordmark. It is more likely that Respondent chose this mark because it has been well-known to consumers for decades.
Therefore, Panel may justly infer that Respondent chose the disputed domain name because of its well-known status, with the intention of imitating Complainant’s well-known Walmart Mark, which is an indication of bad faith registration, as set forth in Policy ¶ 4(b).
Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name for years, combined with its offer to sell the disputed domain name, constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) and ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case D2000-0003 (passive holding of a domain identical to a well-known mark supports bad faith).
Furthermore, Complainant refers to a copy of the result of a reverse WHOIS lookup which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. The search discloses that Respondent’s email address domains@oxford.ai is associated with approximately 125 “.ai” domain names. A number of these correspond to well-known trademarks (e.g., autozone.ai, earthsense.ai, evidencing a pattern of registering domain names that prevent trademark owners from reflecting their marks in corresponding domain names.
Complainant argues that this constitutes independent evidence of a pattern which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)()(ii) and further confirms that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests.
Complainant adds that Respondent’s actions create a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, diverting consumers for commercial gain, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Furthermore Complainant argues that Respondent intentionally misrepresented to the Registrar that the registration of the domain name did not infringe upon the rights of any third parties, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 2. See Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Sound Choice Disc Jockeys, Inc., FA 093636 (Forum, March 13, 2000) (under Policy ¶ 4, a domain name registrant represents and warrants to the domain name registrar that to the registrant’s knowledge, “the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party”).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a multinational retail corporation operating a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores worldwide and holds a large portfolio of trademark and service mark registrations including the following:
· United States registered service mark WALMART, registration number 4,474,440, registered on the Principal Register on January 28, 2014 for goods or services in international classes 35 and 40.
· United States registered trademark WAL-MART, registration number 1,783,039, registered on the Principal Register on July 20, 1993 for services in international class 42.
· United States registered service mark WALMART.COM, registration number 4,180,335, registered on the Principal Register on July 24, 2012 for services in international class 42.
Complainant has an established Internet presence. It owns the walmart.com domain name and has maintained a website at www.walmart.com since at least as early as 1995.
The disputed domain name walmart.ai was registered on December 15, 2017 and resolves to a website stating: ‘This domain is registered, but may still be available’ along with a ‘Get this domain’ button that leads the user to a domain broker service.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar’s WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.
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 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
Complainant has presented uncontested and convincing evidence that it has rights in the trademark and service mark WALMART established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations of the mark described above, and extensive use of the mark in its global retail business with over 10,500 stores and numerous eCommerce websites in 20 countries.
The disputed domain name walmart.ai is identical to Complainant’s name.
The gTLD extension .ai may be ignored for the purposes of comparing the mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name walmart.ai is identical to the WALMART mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant’s detailed submissions above.
The record shows that Respondent has acknowledge that it has no such rights or interest and on October 28, 2025 communicated to Forum that “This case is not disputed. The domain was one of a portfolio acquired some years ago. We will arrange for it to be transferred to Walmart.”
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge the burden of production and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has convincingly argued that WALMART is a “fanciful” or “made-up” word, with no meaning other than to identify Complainant as the exclusive source of certain products and services; and so, it is highly unlikely that the registrant of the disputed domain name independently composed this wordmark.
WALMART is a famous mark as shown in the evidence of the extent of Complainant’s global activities adduced in the Complaint.
On the balance of probabilities, therefore when the disputed domain name walmart.ai was registered on December 15, 2017, the registrant was aware of Complainant’s name and mark and the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, Respondent, by Policy ¶ 2(b) represents and warrants that by asking the Registrar to maintain and renew its registration of the disputed domain name, to his knowledge the registration of the disputed domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party.
This is a positive representation and warranty. The obligations are not diluted or removed by the fact that Respondent may hold thousands of registrations. A failure to comply with this representation and warranty in the circumstances of this case means that the registrant acquired and has maintained the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was chosen, registered and maintained in bad faith with the intention of taking predatory advantage of Complainant’s name, reputation and goodwill in the mark.
The uncontested evidence is that the disputed domain name is being passively held and offered for sale.
In the circumstances of this Complaint, the passive holding the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the for valuable consideration in excess of his documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.
Respondent’s statement that “[t]he domain (sic) was one of a portfolio acquired some years ago”, is no defense.
The Panel finds therefore that the passive holding of the disputed domain name by Respondent constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 walmart.ai domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
________________________________________________
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: November 21, 2025
