DECISION

 

TikTok Ltd. v. chen chang xin

Claim Number: FA2407002107216

PARTIES

Complainant is TikTok Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is chen chang xin ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tiktokgo.com>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn).

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 22, 2024; Forum received payment on July 22, 2024.

 

On July 22, 2024, Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tiktokgo.com> Domain Name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) has verified that Respondent is bound by the Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) 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 July 26, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 2024 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@tiktokgo.com. Also on July 26, 2024, the Chinese and English 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in Chinese and English.

 

On August 16, 2024 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Bearing in mind that the Domain Name is in English and the Domain Name has been offered for sale on a commercial site in English pursuant to UDRP Rule 11 (a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and the Panel decides that the proceedings should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant is the owner of the mark TIK TOK registered, inter alia, in the EU and UK for computer software and services related to sharing multimedia since 2018 with first use recorded as 2017.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it or authorised by the Complainant.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2021 does not point to an active site, but has been offered for sale generally for a sum well in excess of the costs of registration of the Domain Name (USD 278,951.00) which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.

 

Offering the Domain Name for sale for a sum in excess of out of pocket registration costs demonstrates the Respondent's primary intention behind registering the Domain Name is to sell the Domain Name for profit and is bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the mark TIK TOK registered, inter alia, in the EU and UK for computer software and services related to sharing multimedia since 2018 with first use recorded as 2017.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2021 has been offered for sale generally for a sum well in excess of the costs of registration of the Domain Name, namely USD 278,951.00.

 

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

The Domain Name registered in 2021 consists of the Complainant's TIK TOK mark (registered, inter alia, in the EU AND UK since 2018 for software and services relating to sharing of multimedia material) the generic word 'go' and the gTLD .com.

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic word to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic designation 'go' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark has been offered for sale for a sum well in excess of registration costs which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.  See Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Diego Ossa, FA1501001602016 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015). 

 

The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Domain Name containing the Complainant's mark has been offered for sale generally for a sum extraordinarily in excess of costs of registration of the Domain Name. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) ("A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).")

 

As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith primarily for the purposes of sale for profit and that the Complainant has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under s4 (b)(i).

 

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 <tiktokgo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: August 16, 2024