DECISION

 

MIDEA GROUP CO., LTD v. Xpress 9ja

Claim Number: FA2501002137549

 

PARTIES

Complainant is MIDEA GROUP CO., LTD ("Complainant"), represented by Paddy Tam of CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. Respondent is Xpress 9ja ("Respondent"), Nigeria.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <mideaholdings.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 29, 2025; Forum received payment on January 29, 2025.

 

On January 30, 2025, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mideaholdings.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 January 31, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 20, 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@mideaholdings.com. Also on January 31, 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 response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On February 21, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <mideaholdings.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MIDEA mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <mideaholdings.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <mideaholdings.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is in the home appliance industry and holds a registration for the MIDEA mark with the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") (Reg. No. 1549903, registered April 22, 2020).

 

Respondent registered the <mideaholdings.com> domain name on October 25, 2024, and uses it to pass off as Complainant and phish for users' personal information.

 

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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the MIDEA mark based on registration with WIPO and other trademark authorities. See Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. YINGFENG WANG, FA 1568531 (Forum Aug. 21, 2014) ("Complainant has rights in the ALIBABA mark under the Policy through registration with trademark authorities in numerous countries around the world.").

 

Respondent's <mideaholdings.com> domain name uses Complainant's MIDEA mark and simply adds "holdings" and a gTLD. This is not enough to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Svensson Viljae, FA 1784650 (Forum June 1, 2018) (finding confusing similarity where "[t]he disputed domain name <skechers-outlet.com> adds a hyphen and the generic term 'outlet' to Complainant's registered SKECHERS mark, and appends the '.com' top-level domain.").  Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <mideaholdings.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MIDEA mark.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <mideaholdings.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the MIDEA mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Xpress 9ja". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <mideaholdings.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the domain name to pass off as Complainant and phish for users' personal information. Passing off and phishing are not bona fide offerings of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. wangla, wangla,chenxu, chenxu, xuxu, xuxu, zhouxun, 9 zhouxun, wangxu, wangxu, D2024-1249 (WIPO May 28, 2024) (finding that use of a domain name for illegal activity, such as impersonation or passing-off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent); see also DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.").  Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to a website that mimics Complainant's website and prompts users for personal information. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant demonstrates that Respondent registered and uses the <mideaholdings.com> domain name in bad faith to pass off as Complainant and to solicit personal information. This disrupts Complainant's business and evinces bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See UBS AG v. SMS Vice/Ubs, FA 1866179 (Forum Nov. 4, 2019) (finding bad faith where respondent registered and used the domain <ubscash.com> to disrupt the complainant's business and commercially benefit from the disputed domain name by attempting to impersonate complainant in order to conduct a fraudulent phishing scheme for commercial gain). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MIDEA mark when it registered the disputed domain name, noting Respondent's use of Complainant's mark and images to pass off as Complainant, establishing further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 <mideaholdings.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: February 22, 2025