ChatGPT as a UDRP responder
ChatGPT is a popular AI chatbot that can engage in conversational, analytical exchanges. It does not substitute human activities, including the responses of legal advisors.
Regardless, we gave ChatGPT (that is not operating from the domain ChatGPT.com) the following task related to domain names and the UDRP process:
Imagine you own the domain Widgets.com. A company called Bad Inc. has filed a UDRP case with the WIPO, attempting to take your domain name due to legal claims. You have now hired an expert IP attorney and he is writing a response to counter the claims of Bad Inc. Give me that response.
The first attempt by ChatGPT was quite good:
Dear WIPO panel,
We are writing to respond to the UDRP case filed by Bad Inc. against the domain name Widgets.com. We strongly disagree with Bad Inc.’s claims and will provide evidence to support our case.
First, we would like to point out that Bad Inc. does not have any trademarks or intellectual property rights over the term “widgets”. A quick search of the relevant trademark databases reveals that Bad Inc. has never filed any applications to register the term “widgets” as a trademark. Therefore, they have no grounds to claim that our use of the term “widgets” in our domain name is infringing on their rights.
Furthermore, we have been using the domain name Widgets.com for several years to sell widgets, and have built up a significant amount of goodwill and reputation in the market. Our use of the domain name is legitimate and fair, and does not constitute “cyber-squatting” as Bad Inc. has claimed.
We would also like to point out that Bad Inc. has not provided any evidence to support their claim that our domain name is confusingly similar to their own trademarks or domain names. In fact, a quick Google search shows that there are many other companies and websites that use the term “widgets” in their names, and none of them are affiliated with Bad Inc.
In conclusion, we believe that Bad Inc.’s claims are without merit, and we respectfully request that the WIPO panel deny their request to transfer the domain name Widgets.com to them.
We felt that the response was a bit lacking so we responded thus:
Looks great. Now, raise the tone to mention RDNH.
This time around, the ChatGPT filing to our imaginary response to a UDRP for the domain Widgets.com turned up the heat:
Dear WIPO panel,
We are writing to respond to the UDRP case filed by Bad Inc. against the domain name Widgets.com. We strongly disagree with Bad Inc.’s claims and will provide evidence to support our case.
First, we would like to point out that Bad Inc. does not have any trademarks or intellectual property rights over the term “widgets”. A quick search of the relevant trademark databases reveals that Bad Inc. has never filed any applications to register the term “widgets” as a trademark. Therefore, they have no grounds to claim that our use of the term “widgets” in our domain name is infringing on their rights.
Furthermore, we have been using the domain name Widgets.com for several years to sell widgets, and have built up a significant amount of goodwill and reputation in the market. Our use of the domain name is legitimate and fair, and does not constitute “cyber-squatting” as Bad Inc. has claimed.
We would also like to point out that Bad Inc. has not provided any evidence to support their claim that our domain name is confusingly similar to their own trademarks or domain names. In fact, a quick Google search shows that there are many other companies and websites that use the term “widgets” in their names, and none of them are affiliated with Bad Inc.
Based on the above, we believe that Bad Inc.’s claim is an example of reverse domain name hijacking (RDNH), in which they are attempting to use the UDRP process to improperly seize our domain name. We request that the WIPO panel finds in favor of RDNH in this case.
In conclusion, we believe that Bad Inc.’s claims are without merit, and we respectfully request that the WIPO panel deny their request to transfer the domain name Widgets.com to them.
Almost perfect!
One more try would not hurt. We added a bit more direction to ChatGPT regarding this imaginary UDRP:
Great. This version is almost perfect! Please provide additional notes as evidence, including the domain’s age (registration date 20 years ago) and the fact that the company’s trademark is junior to the domain.
Dear WIPO panel,
We are writing to respond to the UDRP case filed by Bad Inc. against the domain name Widgets.com. We strongly disagree with Bad Inc.’s claims and believe that their case is an example of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). We will provide evidence to support our case.
First, we would like to point out that Bad Inc. does not have any trademarks or intellectual property rights over the term “widgets”. A quick search of the relevant trademark databases reveals that Bad Inc. has never filed any applications to register the term “widgets” as a trademark. Therefore, they have no grounds to claim that our use of the term “widgets” in our domain name is infringing on their rights. In addition, our domain name Widgets.com is registered and has been in use for over 20 years, while Bad Inc.’s trademark is junior to our domain name. This further shows that our use of the domain name is legitimate and that Bad Inc. does not have any rights to it.
Furthermore, we have been using the domain name Widgets.com for several years to sell widgets, and have built up a significant amount of goodwill and reputation in the market. Our use of the domain name is legitimate and fair, and does not constitute “cyber-squatting” as Bad Inc. has claimed. In fact, it is clear that Bad Inc. is attempting to unfairly take our domain name from us through the UDRP process, and this constitutes RDNH.
We would also like to point out that Bad Inc. has not provided any evidence to support their claim that our domain name is confusingly similar to their own trademarks or domain names. In fact, a quick Google search shows that there are many other companies and websites that use the term “widgets” in their names, and none of them are affiliated with Bad Inc.
In conclusion, we believe that Bad Inc.’s claims are without merit and are an attempt at RDNH. We respectfully request that the WIPO panel deny their request to transfer the domain name Widgets.com to them, and that they take action to punish Bad Inc. for their attempt at RDNH.
Whoah. This is impressive.
Not only did ChatGPT mention the domain’s age as we asked, but it also peppered the second half of the response with references to cybersquatting. This is a much better response, in our opinion, than the original attempt. There is a chance that a couple more iterations later, perhaps via providing additional direction, it would become a solid document, ready to file, right?
Except, that’s not legal advice and we would point you instead in the direction of a qualified IP attorney, such as ESQwire.com. They know how to approach each UDRP case for its unique characteristics and to provide a customized strategy against those baddies, Bad Inc. 🙂
Ironically, don’t you think there’s a good possibility of ChatGPT.com receiving a UDRP?