DECISION
Midea Group Co., Ltd. (美的集团股份有限公司) v. xu zhen yu
Claim Number: FA2504002153155
PARTIES
Complainant is Midea Group Co., Ltd. (美的集团股份有限公司) ("Complainant"), represented by Paddy Tam of CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden. Respondent is xu zhen yu ("Respondent"), Unknown.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <mideamdv.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 30, 2025. Forum received payment on April 30, 2025.
On May 1, 2025, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <mideamdv.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 May 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 27, 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@mideamdv.com. Also on May 6, 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 May 28, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
Established in 1968, Complainant, Midea Group Co., Ltd. (美的集团股份有限公司), is a publicly listed electrical appliance manufacturer, specializing in air conditioning, refrigeration, laundry, large cooking appliances, large and small kitchen appliances, water appliances, floor care and lighting. Complainant has been a Fortune 500 company since July 2016. While headquartered in Southern China, Complainant is a truly global company with 166,000 employees and operations in more than 195 countries, having 21 production facilities and around 200 subsidiaries worldwide. In 2021, Midea America posted a global annual revenue of over $53.26 billion USD.
Complainant owns trademark registrations for MIDEA and MDV across various jurisdictions, including the China National Intellectual Property Administration ("CNIPA"), the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO"), the European Union Intellectual Property Office ("EUIPO") and the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department ("HKIPD"). Complainant's <midea.com> website received over 3.7 million visitors in December 2024.
Respondent's <mideamdv.com> domain name is confusingly similar to each of Complainant's MIDEA and MDV trademarks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the <mideamdv.com> domain name. Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. Past Panels have determined that use of a disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to content unrelated to a complainant, even if the respondent does not derive commercial benefit from such use, does not automatically render the use of the disputed domain name legitimate. See Victoria Beckham v. David James D2017-0035 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2017).
Respondent registered the <mideamdv.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the MIDEA and MDV marks and uses it with bad faith intent to create confusion with Complainant's mark for Respondent's commercial gain. It is clear that Respondent selected the <mideamdv.com> domain name to intentionally confuse unsuspecting Internet users into visiting its website. As such, it must be held that Respondent has intentionally misappropriated Complainant's trademark as a way of redirecting Internet users searching for Complainant to Respondent's website, which promotes gambling, unrelated to Complainant and its services.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) 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 as 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 shown that it has rights in the MIDEA and MDV figurative marks through numerous registrations, some of which precede the registration of the <mideamdv.com> domain name, e.g., MIDEA, (WIPO Reg. No. 751860, registered on December 19, 2000 and EUIPO Reg. No. 001792605, registered on August 28, 2001); and MDV, (CNIPA Reg. No. 1918870, registered on December 7, 2002 and HKIPD Reg. No. 301915614, registered on May 13, 2011).
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7.
The Panel finds Respondent's <mideamdv.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to each of Complainant's MIDEA and MDV figurative marks, since the distinctive word element of each mark is wholly incorporated in the domain name. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <mideamdv.com> domain name was registered on July 28, 2015, several years after the registrations of Complainant's MIDEA and MDV marks. It resolves to a website promoting lotteries and gambling services wholly unrelated to those provided by Complainant.
These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <mideamdv.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
Although the domain name was registered some 10 years prior to the filing of the Complaint, the circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its MIDEA and MDV marks when Respondent chose the combination of those words when registering the <mideamdv.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mideamdv.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: May 29, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page