DECISION

 

Yahoo Inc. v. Xu Xun / Yao Wei Ming / Xu Xun / Yao Wei Ming

Claim Number: FA2509002175476

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Yahoo Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Joseph C. Daniels-Salamanca of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Xu Xun / Yao Wei Ming / Xu Xun / Yao Wei Ming ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names listed in the Complaint are <yahoooop.com>, <yahooflnb.com>, <yahoofg.com>, <yahoodzht.com>, and <yahooree.com>, registered with DNSPod, Inc.

 

For the reasons given below, the Panel finds that the only relevant domain names for this case are <yahoooop.com>, <yahoofg.com>, and <yahooree.com>.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 5, 2025; Forum received payment on September 5, 2025.

 

On September 9, 2025, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <yahoooop.com>, <yahooflnb.com>, <yahoofg.com>, <yahoodzht.com>, and <yahooree.com> domain names are registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, Inc. 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 September 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 6, 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@yahoooop.com, postmaster@yahooflnb.com, postmaster@yahoofg.com, postmaster@yahoodzht.com, and postmaster@yahooree.com. Also on September 16, 2025, 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 October 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

The Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, thereby making the language of the proceedings Chinese.

 

Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the authority to determine a different language for the proceedings, having regard to the circumstances of the case. It is established practice to take UDRP Rules 10(b) and (c) into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding to ensure fairness and justice to both parties. Pursuant to Rule 10(b), Respondent must be given a fair opportunity to present its case. Pursuant to Rule 10(c), the Panel may weigh the relative time and expense in enforcing the Chinese language agreement, which would result in prejudice toward either party. See Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, D2006-0432 (WIPO June 12, 2006) (deciding that the proceeding should be in English, stating, "It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for the case.").

 

In the present case, Respondent has received the Notice of Complainant and Commencement Notification in Chinese and has chosen not to respond to the Complaint. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Panel determines that fairness and justice to both parties, and due expedition, are best satisfied by conducting the remainder of the proceedings in English. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Yoshihiro Nakazawa, FA 1736477 (Forum July 21, 2017); see also UBS AG v. ratzel laura, FA 1735687 (Forum July 14, 2017).

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. In support of this allegation it states:

a)       The disputed domain names share common registration information such as the registrant names, addresses, and technical and administrative contact details.

b)       The disputed domain names all resolve to inactive websites with identical error messages.

c)       The disputed domain names use the same two sets of domain name servers.

d)       The disputed domain names all use the same registrar, DNSPod, Inc.

e)       The disputed domain names were all registered on the same day, July 7, 2025.

f)       The disputed domain names all incorporate the YAHOO mark in its entirety in conjunction with the addition of extraneous letters such as "oop," "flnb," "fg," "dzht," and "ree."

 

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."

 

The Panel finds that allegations (b) and (d)-(f) above do not necessarily indicate that the domain names are under common control. Allegation (a) is not correct: there are two registrants for the domain names listed in the Complaint: Xu Xun and Yao Wei Ming; each registrant provides different contact information. Allegation (c) is correct: the domain names registered by Xu Xun use the name servers FIBREGLASS.DNSPOD.NET and PLANT.DNSPOD.NET; whereas the domain names registered by Yao Wei Ming use the name servers MADGE.DNSPOD.NET and PISTIL.DNSPOD.NET.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to find that all of the disputed domain names were registered by the same person or entity.

 

Under Forum's Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel must determine which domain names are commonly owned and elect which Respondent to proceed against, as a UDRP decision can proceed against only one Respondent. The Panel is then required to dismiss the Complaint in relation to the domain names not commonly owned by the chosen Respondent. 

 

Accordingly, the Panel will rule only on the <yahoooop.com>, <yahoofg.com>, and <yahooree.com> domain names, and it will dismiss, without prejudice, the complaint regarding the <yahooflnb.com> and <yahoodzht.com> domain names. See Brian Renner v. Contactprivacy.com, FA 1335211 (Forum Aug. 26, 2010); see also Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. M M / shanwang chen / feifei lin / HUA ZHANG / L H / Eddie Nash / Heather Brooker, FA 1973471 (Forum Dec. 17, 2021).

 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it is a global Internet communications, media, and commerce company that delivers a wide range of products and services, including e-mail software and services, technical support services, online advertising and marketing, online publications and livestreams featuring information and news on business, finance, and related fields, web directory and search services, sports, sports betting, games, business management, movie reviews, news, weather, online shopping, audio and video streaming, and more. Complainant asserts rights in the mark YAHOO! through its registration in the United States in 1988. The mark is famous.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its YAHOO! mark as they wholly incorporates the mark, less the exclamation point, and merely add apparently random letters and the ".com" generic top-level-domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain names are not being used.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because they are not being used. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the YAHOO! mark prior to registration of the disputed domain names.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the mark YAHOO! and uses it to provide a variety of information services around the world. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant's rights in its mark date back to 1988.

 

The disputed domain names were registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

The disputed domains names are not being used.

 

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 disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's YAHOO! mark in its entirety, minus the exclamation point, merely adding apparently random letters, together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes fail sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Mrs. World Pageants, Inc. v. Crown Promotions, FA 94321 (Forum Apr. 24, 2000) (finding that punctuation is not significant in determining the similarity of a domain name and mark); see also Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Angelo Kioussis, FA 1784554 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("The domain name contains the mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic letters 'sb' and the digits '2018,' plus the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information on record lists "Xu Xun" as the registrant name. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.

 

The disputed domain names are not being used. Failure to make an active use of a domain name demonstrates that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. See Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004) ("Respondent is wholly appropriating Complainant's mark and is not using the <bloomberg.ro> domain name in connection with an active website. The Panel finds that the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to Complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.

 

Indeed, as already noted, the disputed domain names are not being used. According to paragraph 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0): "From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or "coming soon" page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent's concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put."

 

In the present case, Complainant's trademark is well known. It is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain names that would not violate the Policy, see Morgan Stanley v. TONY / shentony, FA 1637186 (Forum Oct. 10, 2015) ("Respondent registered the disputed domain name [MORGANSTANLEY.ONLINE] in bad faith because . . . it is difficult to envisage any use of the disputed domain name that would not violate the Policy"); see also Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. European Travel Network, D2000-0641 (WIPO Aug. 29, 2000) (where selection of disputed domain name is so obviously connected to complainant's well-known trademark, use by someone with no connection with complainant suggests opportunistic bad faith); see also Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Sheraton Int'l IP, LLC, Westin Hotel Mgmt., L.P. v. Jingjing Tang, D2014-1040 (WIPO Aug. 19, 2014) ("The Panel finds that the [WESTIN] Marks are not such that could legitimately be adopted by traders other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.").

 

There has been no response to the Complaint and Respondent used a privacy service, that is, it attempted to conceal its identity. Given these circumstances, the Panel finds that, in this particular case, a finding of bad faith use can be inferred even though the disputed domain names are not being actively used. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).

 

DECISION

The Panel dismisses, without prejudice, the Complaint against the <yahooflnb.com> and <yahoodzht.com> domain names.

 

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy for the domain names <yahoooop.com>, <yahoofg.com>, and <yahooree.com>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for those domain names.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <yahoooop.com>, <yahoofg.com>, and <yahooree.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that the <yahooflnb.com> and <yahoodzht.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: October 7, 2025