Corporate Counsel Daily, Polish start-up company’s suit against GEICO moves forward, (Oct 21, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

However, the company’s motion for injunctive relief was denied.

The U.S. District Court of Arizona at Phoenix denied the defendant insurance company GEICO’s motion to dismiss a Polish start-up gifting company’s pleas for declaratory relief based on a reverse-domain-hijacking theory and a claim of tortious interference with contract under Arizona law. However, citing the gifting company’s failure to show a likelihood to succeed on the merits of its case, the court denied its motion for a preliminary injunction (Wayf Digital Sp. z o.o. v. Government Employees Insurance Co., No. 2:26-cv-00703-DWL (D. Ariz. Oct. 15, 2026)).

The plaintiff Wayf Digital Sp. z. o.o. (“the gifting company”) is a Polish start-up AI corporate gifting platform with a principal place of business in Warsaw, Poland.

The defendant Government Employees Insurance Company, GEICO (“the insurance company”) provides insurance services to consumers in the United States and offers overseas coverage through non-affiliated partners. The insurance company owns several U.S. trademark registrations for the mark “GEICO” and related marks in connection with its insurance business and also owns an E.U. trademark for the mark GEICO.

In January 2023, the gifting company began “developing a platform focused on personalized dietary supplements with a recommendation engine and gift voucher functionality,” which eventually morphed into “a B2B-focused corporate gifting platform with health and wellbeing at its core.” The gifting company determined that it would name this gifting platform “Gei & Co.”

On May 8, 2025, the gifting company registered the domain name GEICO.AI with Spaceship, a commercial domain registrar.

On October 31, 2025, the insurance company filed a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) action with the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the WIPO”), contending that the gifting company registered and used the insurance company’s mark in bad faith. That same day, consistent with its internal policies, Spaceship locked the domain name, thereby prohibiting the gifting company from utilizing its domain name pending the outcome of the UDRP action. The WIPO’s panel ruled in the insurance company’s favor, ordering that the gifting company’s domain name be transferred to the insurance company.

The gifting company sued in the Arizona district court seeking two claims. Count One sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(D)(v) under a reverse domain hijacking theory. Count Two alleged tortious interference with contract under Arizona law.

Count One. Although the court stated that “it was a close call,” it denied the insurance company’s motion to dismiss Count One. The court stated that even though most of the relevant factors listed under § 1125(d)(1)(B) weighed against the gifting company’s arguments, these factors were not meant by Congress to be an exclusive list. The court stated that “the most important grounds for finding bad faith are the unique circumstances of the case.” Based on the facts of the case, the court concluded that the gifting company had done enough at the pleading stage to allege a lack of bad-faith intent to profit from the insurance company’s mark and thus avoid dismissal.

Count Two. The gifting company asserted a claim for tortious interference with contract under Arizona law. Discounting the insurance company’s arguments that the gifting company failed to meet the technical requirements to contest Spaceship’s action against the gifting company’s domain name, the court ruled that the gifting company adequately pled damages and had stated a claim for tortious interference. Accordingly, the court denied the insurance company’s motion to dismiss Count Two.

Injunctive relief. The court denied the gifting company’s motion for injunctive relief. The court concluded that the gifting company had not established that it was likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Further, the facts weighed against the gifting company: it registered the domain name via a privacy service that obscured its true identity, despite lacking any trademark or other intellectual property rights in the domain name, despite lacking any natural connection to the domain name, and despite never previously using the domain name.

Court action. The district court denied the gifting company’s motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the insurance company’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Case is No. 2:26-cv-00703-DWL.

Judge: Lanza, D.

Attorneys: Aaron K. Haar (Jaburg Wilk PC) for Wayf Digital Sp. z o.o. Jackie Salwa (Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC) for Government Employees Insurance Co.

Companies: Wayf Digital Sp. z o.o.; Government Employees Insurance Co.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark ArizonaNews GCNNews